Voices of the Invisible Presence: Diplomatic Interpreters in Post-World War II Japan (Benjamins Translation Library, EST Subseries)

Voices of the Invisible Presence Benjamins Translation Library (BTL) The BTL aims to stimulate research and training ...

Author: Kumiko Torikai

27 downloads 732 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Voices of the Invisible Presence

Benjamins Translation Library (BTL) The BTL aims to stimulate research and training in translation and interpreting studies. The Library provides a forum for a variety of approaches (which may sometimes be conflicting) in a socio-cultural, historical, theoretical, applied and pedagogical context. The Library includes scholarly works, reference books, postgraduate text books and readers in the English language.

EST Subseries The European Society for Translation Studies (EST) Subseries is a publication channel within the Library to optimize EST’s function as a forum for the translation and interpreting research community. It promotes new trends in research, gives more visibility to young scholars’ work, publicizes new research methods, makes available documents from EST, and reissues classical works in translation studies which do not exist in English or which are now out of print.

General Editor

Associate Editor

Honorary Editor

Yves Gambier

Miriam Shlesinger

Gideon Toury

Rosemary Arrojo

Zuzana Jettmarová

Rosa Rabadán

Michael Cronin

Werner Koller

Sherry Simon

Daniel Gile

Alet Kruger

Mary Snell-Hornby

José Lambert

Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit

John Milton

Maria Tymoczko

University of Turku

Bar-Ilan University Israel

Tel Aviv University

Advisory Board Binghamton University Dublin City University Université Paris 3 - Sorbonne Nouvelle

Ulrich Heid

University of Stuttgart

Amparo Hurtado Albir

Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona

W. John Hutchins

University of East Anglia

Charles University of Prague Bergen University UNISA, South Africa Catholic University of Leuven University of São Paulo

Franz Pöchhacker

University of Vienna

Anthony Pym

Universitat Rovira i Virgili

Volume 83 Voices of the Invisible Presence. Diplomatic interpreters in post-World War II Japan by Kumiko Torikai

University of León Concordia University University of Vienna University of Joensuu

University of Massachusetts Amherst

Lawrence Venuti

Temple University

Voices of the Invisible Presence Diplomatic interpreters in post-World War II Japan

Kumiko Torikai Rikkyo University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Torikai, Kumiko, 1946 Voices of the invisible presence : diplomatic interpreters in post-World War II Japan / by Kumiko Torikai. p. cm. (Benjamins Translation Library, issn 0929-7316 ; v. 83) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Translating and interpreting. 2. Intercultural communication. 3. Translators--Japan-Interviews. 4. United States--Foreign relations--Japan. 5. Japan--Foreign relations--United States. I. Title. II. Series. P306.8.J3T68 2009 418'.02095209045--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 2427 9 (Hb; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 9002 1 (eb)

2008045266

© 2009 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Acknowledgements 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

1.5

Introduction Invisible and soundless voices 1 The development of interpreting 3 Aim of the study 6 Oral history as a method 11 1.4.1 What is oral history? 11 1.4.2 Narratives as evidence 13 1.4.3 Life-story interviews 21 1.4.4 Profiles of five pioneer interpreters in Japan 24 Conclusion 25

2. A brief history of interpreting/translation in Japan 2.1 Interpreters in Nagasaki 28 2.2 Translation and the modernization in Meiji Japan 29 2.2.1 Fukuzawa Yukichi 30 2.2.2 Tsuda Sen 31 2.3 War and peace 32 2.3.1 The Potsdam Declaration 33 2.3.2 International Military Tribunal for the Far East 36 2.4 Simultaneous interpreting in Japan 37 2.5 A case study of mistranslation in Japanese diplomacy 39 2.5.1 Sato’s ‘I’ll do my best’ reply to Nixon 39 2.6 Interpreter training and foreign language education in Japan 43 2.7 Interpreting studies in Japan 46 2.8 Conclusion 47 3. 3.1

Habitus Learning English as a foreign language 50 3.1.1 Motivation for language learning 51 3.1.2 Teachers of English 55 3.1.3 Studying a ‘hostile language’ during the war 56 3.1.4 Studying English after the war 59

ix 1

27

49

vi


3.2 Growing up in a bilingual environment 64 3.2.1 Acquiring English 64 3.2.2 Critical thinking 67 3.2.3 Learning Japanese 69 3.3 Experiencing World War II 70 3.3.1 Pre-war years 70 3.3.2 Wartime days 75 3.3.3 Post-war period 77 3.4 Discussion 79 3.5 Conclusion 83 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Into the field of interpreting Occupation Forces 86 Moral Re-Armament 94 Productivity teams 96 Japan-U.S. Ministerial Meetings on Trade and Economic Affairs 103 Discussion 105 Conclusion 109

Interpreting as a practice Nishiyama and Reischauer-Sensei 113 5.1.1 Kono Ichiro’s tanka 113 5.1.2 Kakeai manzai with Ambassador Reischauer 115 5.1.3 Interpreters as tomei ningen 118 5.1.4 Nishiyama made visible by Apollo 119 5.2 Komatsu as a visible machine 122 5.2.1 As a member of diplomatic teams 123 5.2.2 Faithful but visible 124 5.2.3 The interpreter as a machine 126 5.3 Muramatsu and ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ 127 5.3.1 What happened 127 5.3.2 What Nakasone intended to say 132 5.3.3 Interpreter’s choice 133 5.4 Sohma as the first female simultaneous interpreter in Japan 135 5.4.1 Gender bias 135 5.4.2 Interpreting as a ‘calling’ 136 5.4.3 Mother and daughter 137 5.4.4 Interpreters’ responsibility 138 5.4.5 Motivation for an interpreter 139 5. 5.1

85

111

Table of contents vii

Kunihiro and his keren interpreting 140 5.5.1 Prime Minister Miki’s press conference 141 5.5.2 Keren interpreting 142 5.5.3 Comradeship with Miki 145 5.6 Discussion 147 5.7 Conclusion 150 5.5

6. Insights 6.1 The role of interpreters 153 6.1.1 Interpreter Interpersonal Role Inventory 155 6.1.2 Conference interpreters 160 6.2 Cultural issues for interpreters 164 6.2.1 The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity 169 6.2.2 Intercultural competence/literacy 171 6.3 Conclusion 173

153

7.

175

Perspectives

References

183

Index

195

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank wholeheartedly the five pioneer interpreters who kindly agreed to take part in life-story interviews: Nishiyama Sen, Sohma Yukika, Muramatsu Masumi, Kunihiro Masao and Komatsu Tatsuya. This study would not have been possible without their willingness and enthusiasm in the research. Each of them spent hours, patiently answering detailed questions, talking about their work and their life, providing an exceptionally rich source of knowledge and experience, which shapes the core of the study. Their narratives, impressive and revealing, kept me going throughout the process of the work, and made it truly engaging and rewarding. This book is based on my Ph.D. thesis, which was submitted to the University of Southampton in December 2006, and my heartfelt gratitude goes to my supervisor, Professor Michael Kelly, who from the very beginning expressed keen interest in the project and continued to encourage me with his insightful advice and feedback, perceptive comments and criticisms. His extraordinary intelligence and scholarship never ceased to impress me and I have learned immeasurably from his presence and from the academic exchanges we had. My advisor Professor Patrick Stevenson, likewise, was always ready to give me constructive criticism and invaluable advice through the whole process of completing the thesis. I would also like to thank wholeheartedly my external examiner, Professor Michael Cronin of Dublin City University, for critiquing the thesis with deep insight, expert knowledge, and warm encouragement. At the University of Southampton, Professor Alasdair Archibald, as an internal examiner, went over the thesis meticulously and gave careful assistance in finalizing it, and Professor Elizabeth Dore kindly helped me at the initial stage of research with literature on oral history. To Rikkyo University in Tokyo, Japan, I am grateful for their granting me the one-year sabbatical which allowed me to devote time and energy to writing the thesis. My appreciation also goes to my colleagues at Rikkyo Graduate School of Intercultural Communication: Professors Noda Ken-ichi, Kume Teruyuki and Abe Osamu for their support, as well as our two outstanding linguists, Professors Hiraga Masako and Koyama Wataru, who inspired me greatly. My special thanks go to Dr. Joseph Shaules, Director of Japan Intercultural Institute, who prompted me to undertake the doctoral work at Southampton and


helped me in diverse ways. Without his friendship and encouragement, it would have been difficult to make my research aspirations a reality. I owe a debt of gratitude to fellow members of the Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies, particularly Kondo Masaomi, Tsuda Mamoru, Mizuno Makiko and Nagata Sae for their professional views, along with Mizuno Akira and Tsuruta Chikako for their cooperation. At the same time, my appreciation extends to numerous anonymous interpreters, past and present, in Japan and elsewhere, whose endeavours in intercultural communication sustained my energy and commitment to this work. There are a number of people who assisted me in the process of materializing my ideas and thoughts, both directly and indirectly. In Japan, Professor Hirano Ken-ichiro initially encouraged me to do research on the socio-cultural significance of interpreting, particularly in international relations, Professor Ide Sachiko continued to give moral support in the study of interpreting, and Dr.Sakai Junko introduced me to the world of oral history. Overseas, Professors Claudia Angelelli, Mona Baker, Nanette Gottlieb, Ian Mason, Etilvia Arjona Tseng, Lawrence Venuti and Cecilia Wadensjö, as well as David Sawyer, Alex Krouglov and John Kearns, generously offered help or gave comments on the issues relevant to the project. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the following people: Harada Nobuko and Ogawara Sumie in transcribing the interviews, Saito Nami in translating the voluminous transcripts into English and transferring the interview tapes onto CD, and Fred Uleman in proofreading the text. My sincere appreciation goes to Professor Miriam Shlesinger, the series editor of John Benjamins Translation Studies Library, for her scholarly insight and encouragement, to anonymous reviewers for their valuable and precise comments, and the acquisition editor Isja Conen for her indispensable help. A special word of thanks is due to all my family. This book is dedicated to Manabu, Ikuko and Ayako, who so enrich my life and whose presence I treasure.

Torikai Kumiko Tokyo, November 2008

chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

Invisible and soundless voices

Interpreters are invisible. They are not meant to be seen. Igor Korchilov, a top Russian interpreter at the United Nations and in diplomacy, introduced in his memoir the previously unwritten rule: ‘The interpreter is supposed to be heard, not seen’ (1997: 19). And yet, in actuality, what the interpreters say is what somebody else has said, and their own voices remain inaudible. Their voices are not meant to be heard. They exist, and yet they do not exist, as is aptly described in a press comment: Eisenhower and Khrushchev. Carter and Brezhnev. Reagan and Gorbachev. In almost every photograph there is a slim, dark-haired man standing in the middle, anonymous but indispensable. He has the respectful mien of a manservant and the concentration of a game-show player, and his head is often tilted slightly to one side, close to the ear of one of his neighbors. […] Sukhodrev was present but not present, emptying himself of ego, slipping into the skin of the man who was speaking, feeling his feelings, saying his words. (Mydans, International Herald Tribune, Oct. 1–2, 2005)

This is a comment about Viktor Sukhodrev, aged 72, widely considered the king of interpreters, ‘who in a career of nearly 30 years was present at more superpower summitry, more deal-making, more brinkmanship than any of the men who flanked him.’ If you substitute the names of presidents, the description would fit any diplomatic interpreter in Japan. Just as with Sukhodrev in Russia, interpreters in general are ‘present but not present,’ ‘indispensable but anonymous.’ They are the ‘man in the middle.’ In the Japanese newspapers, when presenting a photograph of dignitaries, the interpreter in the middle is always described as ‘skip one person, and the next is….’ Called ‘skip one person,’ the interpreter is in a sense a ‘non-person’ (Goffman 1981: 135), using the first person ‘I’, or alien ‘I’, when speaking the words of whoever happens to be speaking, which requires them to empty their ego.


Psychologist Eric Erikson likened the negative identity of minority youth to African-American writers and wrote: ‘And so we have in our American Negro writers the almost ritualized affirmation of “inaudibility,” “invisibility,” “namelessness,” “facelessness – a void of faceless faces, of soundless voices lying outside history” as Ralph Ellison puts it’ (Erikson 1968: 25). Exactly the same descriptions can be applied to interpreters, perhaps more so. This is exemplified in two books, published simultaneously in Japan and in the U.S., designed to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (Hosoya 2001). They contain papers by experts in various fields of U.S.-Japan relations, from politics, economics and military affairs to cultural exchanges, and yet there is no mention of interpreters, not even a page or a line of reference to the role they played during those 50 years. This by no means is an exception. The non-existence of interpreters is apparent not only in the media but in minutes and records of diplomatic conferences. The official records of bilateral negotiations between Japan and the United States, for example, are usually prepared in the form of joint statements, with the English version treated officially as the original, and the Japanese translation provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Hosoya et al. 1999: xi). While the names of participants from both sides are recorded, interpreters are peculiarly missing in most cases, with a rare exception of the mention of ‘James Wickel, L.S., Interpreter,’ for the Memorandum of Conversation between Prime Minister Ikeda and Secretary of State Dean Rusk, on November 26, 1963, without any mention of an interpreter on the Japanese side. When Prime Minister Ikeda had a meeting with President Kennedy on June 21, 1961, on the Potomac in what was called a ‘yacht meeting,’ it is recorded by the U.S. Government that the only people present on the presidential boat were President Kennedy, Prime Minister Ikeda, Senator Miyazawa and ‘an interpreter for the American side’ – indispensable, but anonymous. In Japan, interpreters are commonly depicted as ‘kurogo,’ or ‘kuroko’ in colloquial language, literally meaning black (kuro) attire (go). In kabuki, one of Japan’s traditional theater forms, a kurogo, a ‘person in black,’ is a figure who appears on stage dressed all in black with a black hood. His role is to help the actors on stage . Office of Language Services, U.S. Department of State. David Sawyer, currently working for the Office of Language Services as Senior Diplomatic Interpreter, confirms that the interpreter is not mentioned in U.S. official documents and the reference to James Wickel is an exception, adding there is mention of interpretation in speeches published on the White House and State Department websites, and if the interpreting is transcribed, it is stated in parentheses before the corresponding passage (personal communication, July 7, 2006). . It is likely that Counselor Akatani Genichi of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs acted as interpreter for Prime Minister Ikeda Hayato and Foreign Minister Masayoshi Ohira.

Chapter 1. Introduction

in various ways, as well as to remove props that are no longer used or bring them out when needed. Although he is visible and indispensable in kabuki, ‘the theater convention is to disregard him, and hence he remains a shadow figure’ (Kodama 2000: 49). The tacit agreement is that kurogo is an invisible presence on stage, not meant to be seen by the audience. Interpreters are expected to play more or less the same role as kurogo. They are there with principal players on stage, doing significant work. Nevertheless, they are not supposed to be seen and are expected to be transparent. Interpreters in negotiations sit between the two parties bridging the linguistic barriers, and yet their own voices are not heard, and their presence is usually not acknowledged in history. The official documents or the minutes of meetings generally record speeches and verbal exchanges created by official speakers, or ‘authors’ or ‘principals’ to use Goffman’s (1981) term, and even in rare cases when their interpreting is recorded and used, interpreters usually remain anonymous. The interpreting practice at diplomatic meetings and conferences indeed is ephemeral, evanescent and the interpreters’ voices evaporate like bubbles in the air. Ironically, the only time the presence of interpreters is highlighted is when they are held responsible for their alleged mistranslations. When things are going well, nobody pays attention to interpreters. Only when they make a mistake, or say something perceived as such, they find themselves in the spotlight (see Korchilov 1997: 19). Someone once said that good interpreting is like air – no one notices it until it is polluted. Nobody notices the interpreter as long as he is doing all right, but the moment he makes a slip, he becomes the focus of attention (ibid.: 261). Even in such situations, interpreters remain silent and never venture to explain, let alone defend themselves, because of the constraints imposed on them by professional ethics of interpreters not to disclose the content of what they interpreted.

1.2

The development of interpreting

Delisle and Woodsworth (1995), published under the auspices of the International Federation of Translators (FIT), cover translation history from ancient times to the present, but the history of interpreting appears only in the last chapter, and the other chapters are devoted solely to written translation. This does not mean FIT is an association for translators only. In English, the word ‘translator’ can be a generic term covering both translation for written texts as well as interpreting for oral discourse (see Pőchhacker 2004: 9–10). As such, FIT has interpreters from . When used as a generic term, the word will be spelled with a capitalized T, as in Translation or Translator.


all over the world as its members. By the same token, the fact that there is only one chapter on interpreting, appearing at the end of the book, does not mean that interpreting started recently and only covers a small portion in recent years in the long history of Translation. As a matter of fact, interpreting is not simply as old as written translation – it started much earlier because human communication started with orality (see Ong 1982). Then why is spoken language interpreting less talked about and less studied than written translation, almost as if it did not exist? The explanation is actually given in the beginning of Chapter 9, written by Margareta Bowen, of the same book: ‘The spoken word is evanescent. Our knowledge of the past performance of interpreters tends to be derived from such sources as letters, diaries, memoirs and biographies of interpreters themselves, along with a variety of other documents, many of which were only marginally or incidentally concerned with interpreting […]’ (1995: 245). Research on the history of interpreting in different countries has begun only recently, and ‘because of the absence of ideal, reliable records, some blanks will probably never be filled in’ (ibid.), although as early as 3000BC the Egyptians had a hieroglyphic signifying ‘interpreting.’ Despite the presence of interpreters in ancient times, they were rarely mentioned before the Renaissance, a possible contributing factor being the primacy of the written text over the spoken word (ibid.: 246). It goes without saying that it is easier for translators to be recognized in history, working on written documents or texts as they do, than it is for interpreters working on oral communication. It is also pointed out that ‘the social status of interpreters may also account for their position in the annals of history: ethnic and cultural hybrids, often women, slaves or members of a “subcaste”,’ and that ‘these go-betweens, notwithstanding their mediating between distant cultures, were not accorded the place they deserved in historical records’ (ibid.: 245– 246; see also Kondo 1988). In spite of this non-existence in history, interpreters have played and do play an important part in various communicative and cultural encounters, as the role played by the interpreter is likely to exert considerable influence on the evolution of group structure and on the outcome of the interaction (Anderson 1976/2002: 209–210). R. Bruce W. Anderson suggested that international negotiations concerning trade agreements, peace treaties, and the like, constitute area of potential sociological interest in the role of the interpreter. This is precisely what the present study aims to uncover, elucidate and examine. Interpreting gained importance in foreign relations around 1920, after the First World War, when President Wilson and Premier Llyod George succeeded in having English recognized as an official language, on an equal basis with French, at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the need increasing with the foundation


of the League of Nations, the International Labour Office (ILO) and the Permanent Court of International Justice (Gaiba 1998: 27; Baigorri-Jalón 1999: 29). Consecutive and whispering interpreting were the first techniques used, but both proved unsatisfactory, with whispered interpreting interfering with the voice of the speaker, and consecutive mode taking too much time, thereby delaying the sessions, hence the need for a more efficient method of translation at international conferences. The first patent for simultaneous interpreting equipment was granted in 1926 to Gordon Finlay at IBM for his device based on an idea of the founder of Boston’s Filene’s department store, Edward A. Filene. Simultaneous interpreting was first tried as early as 1928 at the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in the former Soviet Union, then in 1933 booths were used at the plenum of the executive committee of the Communist International, and in 1935 at the Fifteenth International Physiology Congress in Leningrad, academician Pavlov’s introductory speech was translated from Russian into French, English and German. However, simultaneous interpretating in those early days was either ‘simultaneous successive interpretation,’ basically consecutive, or the ‘simultaneous reading of pretranslated texts,’ and simultaneous interpreting as we know it today emerged on the international scene at the War Crimes Trial of 1945–1946 at Nuremberg (Gaiba 1998; Baigorri-Jalón 1999; Visson 2005). Simultaneous interpreting in a way came of age at Nuremberg, and the Trials virtually played the role of an on-the job training center for novice simultaneous interpreters, proving that simultaneous interpreting was technically feasible, time-saving and cost-effective (Baigorri-Jalón 1999: 34). The first simultaneous test at the United Nations was carried out successfully in November 1946, with a full-dress version repeated in the 1947 General Assembly. Although initianlly consecutive interpreters were hostile toward simultaneous, fearing that they might lose their jobs and also feeling that working in a booth instead of from the podium meant a loss of status, most of them adapted to simultaneous mode by1947 (Baigorri-Jalón 1999: 34–36). Korchilov reminisces that ‘In the late 1940s and the early 1950s, when simultaneous interpretation was still a novelty at the U.N., visitors asked to see three things: Mrs. Roosevelt, the ranking Soviet delegate, and the simultaneous interpreters, not necessarily in that order’ (1997: 21). The focus of research in interpreting has long been primarily on mental processing operations performed by the interpreter, with a particular focus on simultaneity of conference interpreting (e.g. Paneth 1957; Oléron and Nanpon 1965; Barik 1969; Pinter 1969; Gerver 1971; Goldman-Eisler 1972; Gile 1985; Moser-Mercer 1997), studied from such disciplines as psychology, psycholinguistics, cognitive sciences and neurolinguistics (Pőchhacker 2004; see also Setton 1999). However, as countries worldwide became more multilingual with people


moving across borders, research interests shifted toward interpreting in community settings. Recent studies on community or dialogue interpreting, based on sociolinguistic and pragmatic analysis, reveal the reality of interpreter-mediated exchanges. Unlike simultaneous conference interpreting, which is basically monologic, face-to-face community interpreting calls for revisiting the role of interpreters (see 6.4). This phenomenon can also be witnessed in diplomatic negotiations, where interpreters try to understand the intention (Benjamin 1992), illocutionary force (Searle 1969) and implicature (Grice 1989) of the participant’s utterances and covey the message based on their perception and understanding. In other words, the possibility exists that interpreters inadvertently play a key role as mediator bridging the gap between two different languages in diverse communicative events, whether at official meetings, informal gatherings, secret summit meetings, or lectures and press conferences. Therefore, the presence of interpreters and their work should not be overlooked when we study the history of Japan. This would include official interpreters in Nagasaki dating back to the 17th century. In the present study, however, the focus is rather on Japan after the Second World War, when Japan was busy rebuilding the nation from war-torn devastation to becoming a full-fledged member of the international society. Although there were interpreters whose services were indispensable, apart from some memoirs and anecdotes, their contributions have not been sufficiently recognized, because of their work being basically oral, which is by nature evanescent, and for professional constraints of confidentiality. As a result, much of what took place during the 60 years of Japan’s foreign relations after WWII, in terms of language and communication, has been outside the interest of the media, general public, and certainly academia; hence, outside of official history.

1.3

Aim of the study

Studying translation and interpreting history can be a valuable source for the political or sociological study of international relations (Pym 1998: vii; Hirano 2008: 152). In order to work on the history of translation (and interpreting), two questions should be addressed: how to do it, and why it should be done one way rather than another (Pym 1998: vii). Furthermore, in contemplating translators’s role in translation history, Anthony Pym admits that he is unable to cite any extensive research on how people become translators, and if they continue their profession throughout their life (ibid.: 162). Pym’s claim about translation history and the translator can be justly applied to interpreting history and the interpreter.


The aim of the present study, then, is to foreground the life of past interpreters involved in international relations, and the method chosen is oral history (more on oral history as a method in Section 1.4). It attempts to collect the living memories of interpreters, who devoted themselves to mediating intercultural communication in the political and economic arena, specifically through life-story interviews of five pioneer simultaneous interpreters, to listen to the voices of the invisible. The primary questions the study addresses are: 1. 2. 3.

What kind of people became interpreters in post-WWII Japan? Why and how did they become interpreters? How did they perceive their role as interpreters? What kind of role did they actually play in Japan’s foreign relations?

By pursuing these questions, the study ultimately seeks to illuminate the role of interpreters in intercultural communicative events. For this purpose, one has to first understand the interpreters as human beings within broader historical, social as well as cultural contexts, because interpreters as professionals, including simultaneous conference interpreters, are ‘surrounded with both the immediate conference settings where they work and the broader socio-cultural, ideological and interactional context(s) that position, honor and constrain them’ (Diriker 2004: 25). Secondly, the interpreting profession has to be studied closely to see what kind of work it entails and what kind of role is expected of them. Lastly, the interpreters’ actual performances have to be analyzed in depth to fully grasp the reality of their practice. As Ebru Diriker’s study (2004) suggests, there is a gap between the general/de-contextualized discourse on interpreting, treating interpreting as a ‘universal’ phenomenon, and the specific, contextualized discourse, revealing the personal involvement of the interpreters in shaping the ‘meaning’ to be transferred (ibid.: 132). In order to see the complexity of the interpreting reality for what it is and study the role of the interpreter as ‘the regulator of the multiple speaker-positions’ (ibid.: 141), the central object to study should be the interpreter as human beings (see Pym 1998: ix). It seems appropriate for this study, thus, to draw on Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of the ‘habitus,’ ‘field’ and ‘practice.’ The application of Bourdieu’s social theory to translation studies, including the notion of the habitus, has emerged recently, as exemplified in Daniel Simeoni’s discussion in 1998 of the pivotal status of the translator’s habitus, followed by other researchers as Jean-Marc Gouanvic (2005) and Moira Inghilleri (2003, 2005a, 2005b). According to Bourdieu: The habitus, a product of history, produces individual and collective practices – more history – in accordance with the schemes generated by history. It ensures


the active presence of past experiences, which deposited in each organism in the form of schemes of perception, thought and action, tend to guarantee the ‘correctness’ of practices and their constancy over time, more reliably than all formal rules and explicit norms. This system of dispositions – a present past that tends to perpetuate itself into the future by reactivation in similarly structured practices, an internal law through which the law of external necessities, irreducible to immediate constraints, is constantly exerted – is the principle of the con(1990: 54, emphasis in original) tinuity and regularity […].

It is deemed legitimate to consider the habitus of each of the interpreters in the study to fully understand them, because as Bourdieu explains, ‘the habitus is an infinite capacity for generating products – thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions – whose limits are set by the historically and socially situated conditions of its production’ (5, emphasis in original). The habitus is the product of an individual history as well as the whole collective history of family and class (Gouanvic 2005: 158–159; Bourdieu 1990: 91), and it is something closely linked to a certain field, intrinsically woven together (Gouanvic 2005: 148–158). Wondering what in the translators’ habitus pushes them towards particular authors, Gouanvic (2005) studied three French translators of American literature, illustrating how their habitus led them to appreciate certain texts and authors (158–161). In the present study, the question is to seek how the habitus of the pioneering interpreters led them towards the field of interpreting. Bourdieu (1990: 66–67) likens the ‘field’ to the pitch or board on which a game is played, with ‘explicit and specific rules’ and with a ‘feel for the game,’ adding, however, that ‘in the social fields, which are the products of a long, slow process of autonomization, […] one does not embark on the game by a conscious act, one is born into the game, with the game.’ In reference to ‘the almost miraculous encounter between the habitus and a field,’ Bourdieu asserts that ‘the various fields provide themselves with agents equipped with the habitus needed to make them work’ and compares ‘vocation’ to the acquisition of the mother tongue, learning of a game to the learning of a foreign language. It will be of significance, then, to look into the relationship between the interpreters’ habitus and the field of interpreting. The remaining question is the practice, which ‘unfolds in time and it has all the correlative properties, such as irreversibility’ and ‘its temporal structure, that is, its rhythm, its tempo, and above all its directionality, is constitutive of its meaning’ (Bourdieu 1990: 81). Bourdieu juxtaposes this view of practice to science, which tends to ignore time and detemporalize practice. What this study tries to unfold is the reality of the practice of interpreting, communicative events of here and now, ‘inseparable from temporality’ (ibid.).


In order to pursue these fundamental questions of interpreters’ habitus, field, and practice, oral history with particular emphasis on life-story interviews is considered to be a valid method, since oral testimony enable us to approach the issue of ‘agency and subjectivity in history’ (James 2000: 124). Indeed, the quest of this study is none other than allowing interpreters to emerge from being invisible presence to being ‘fuller human beings’ (Thompson 2000: 24), making explicit the agency and subjectivity, thus changing the focus of diplomatic history to open up new areas of inquiry (see 1. 4 for more details). The first part of the study, therefore, is focused on the life of each of the five diplomatic interpreters. Asking about their upbringing, their family, and the educational and social background that fostered them, or the construction of their ‘habitus,’ the study seeks to understand interpreters as human beings living at one point in history, and to see what motivated them to become interpreters when the profession was not yet fully established. This is important, since the habitus, the product of history, ‘produces individual and collective practices, and hence history, in accordance with the schemes engendered by history’ (Bourdieu 1977: 82). Additionally, by learning how the pioneers acquired linguistic, communicative and intercultural competence to become professional conference/diplomatic interpreters, it is hoped that we might gain some additional insights of relevance to language teaching as well as interpreter training. The second part of the study is devoted to their various work experiences as pioneering simultaneous interpreters at conferences and in diplomatic negotiations. By analyzing their narratives, the study aims to explore their attitudes and perceptions about the role of interpreters, since these attitudes and perceptions may be presumed to have influenced their judgments in practice and their actual positioning in diplomatic interpreting. Finally, based on the case studies of the five interpreters, attempts will be made to illuminate the role of interpreters, which is commonly described as ‘invisible,’ ‘transparent’ and depicted as kurogo/kuroko in Japan. The question of neutrality and invisibility is a complicated issue, closely related to the never-ending debate on accuracy, equivalence or faithfulness, and as such, continues to be an old and a new topic in Japan as well as in other countries. The present study will explore this recurrent theme in a Japanese context, with a specific focus on diplomatic interpreting, in the hope of gaining some insight into the intricate issue of the role of interpreters. Interpreting can be categorized in different ways (Pőchhacker 2004: 13–20). It can be distinguished based upon social context of interaction or setting, such as business interpreting, diplomatic interpreting, court interpreting, media interpreting and many others. Or it can be categorized according to the situational constellation of interaction, such as dialogue interpreting, international

10


c onference interpreting, or intra-social community interpreting. It can also be classified by language modality – spoken-language interpreting or sign language interpreting, or else by a working mode such as consecutive (translation rendered after the source language utterance) or simultaneous interpreting (performed as the source language text is being produced, with the time lag of seconds). These distinctions, however, are not static. Conference interpreters work in spoken language, usually in simultaneous mode using transmission equipment, but they also work in consecutive such as at press conferences, or they work in bilateral dialogic settings such as in diplomatic negotiations (see Chapter 6). Although nowadays in Japan, broadcast interpreting (called hõso-tsũyaku in Japanese) is becoming more autonomous as a profession, in many instances, particularly in the past, the difference between conference and broadcast interpreting is not clearly marked, with many conference interpreters working in the media. Therefore, it is not unusual to see conference interpreters work sometimes as diplomatic interpreters, other times as media/broadcast interpreters. In addition, in a Japanese context, the term ‘dõji-tsũyaku’ (simultaneous interpreting/interpreter) has become such a familiar word after the live satellite broadcasts of Apollo 11 moon landing that it has come to be used to describe professional interpreting in general, including conference interpreting. Under such circumstances, the interpreters in the present study are simultaneous conference interpreters working in diplomacy, and popularly referred to by Japanese people simply as‘dõji-tsũyaku.’ While this study draws heavily on recent studies of dialogue interpreting, with all its implications in face-to-face interaction and interpersonal communication, it specifically focuses on interpreting in foreign relations which has not been accorded sufficient attention. The subjects in this study are all pioneers in simultaneous interpreting between Japanese and English, their work encompassing conference, media and diplomatic interpreting. The life-story interviews are categorized and introduced in three distinct parts based on Bourdieu’s concept of ‘habitus’ (Chapter 3), ‘field’ (Chapter 4) and ‘practice’ (Chapter 5). Particularly in Chapter 5, the experiences of each of the five diplomatic interpreters are presented as case studies and examined in the light of Erving Goffman’s ‘participation framework.’ Then in Chapter 6, the narratives of the pioneer interpreters are analyzed focusing on the role of interpreters, leading to the final discussion in Chapter 7. The five pioneer interpreters in the present study were deeply involved in crucial moments of history during Japan’s reconstruction and subsequent growth into a major economic power, and as such, by casting a close look at their stories, the study proposes to uncover the contribution they made in post-World War II Japan, hopefully gaining insight into a different facet of Japan’s diplomacy, illuminating the place of interpreters in Japan’s foreign relations, and ultimately


serving to illustrate the significance of interpreting in the history of intercultural communication in Japan.

1.4

Oral history as a method

The present study is fundamentally based on oral history method, which uses as raw material the lived experience of people so that a new perspective is given to history. Although the subjects in the study are all professional interpreters, expert interviews are not employed here, since they place more importance on expertise of the interviewees in a certain field, with less interest in themselves as human beings, in contrast to biographical interviews (Flick 2006: 165). The present study seeks to explore a new dimension in diplomatic history from the vantage point of interpreting and interpreters, and as such, it is vital to learn about each subject as a whole person. Hence, among various types of interviews, a more holistic approach is selected – life-story interview as a form of oral history. Oral history is deemed appropriate as a method for this particular research because it is a history built around people. It allows heroes not just from the leaders, but from the unknown majority of the people (Thompson 2000: 23).

1.4.1 What is oral history? Although oral history is as old as history itself, it lost its eminence until it was revived with post-war political change, as ‘colonial Africa moved to independence needing a history of their own, combined with the working-class movement in Britain heightening an interest in labour history, by the 1960s broadening into social history’ (Thompson 2000: 72). This convergence of sociology and history was encouraged in UK ‘through the founding of the new universities of the 1960s with their interdisciplinary experiments, and the rapid expansion of a sociology which was showing an increasing concern with the historical dimension in social analysis’ (ibid.: 73–74). Fundamentally, oral history begins in the orality of the narrator, but it is directed towards, and presented as, the written text: Oral narrators are aware of this written destination, and bear it in mind as they shape their performance; on the other hand, the task of the oral historian is to write in such a way that readers are constantly reminded of the oral origins of the text they are reading. In the end, we might define oral history as the genre of discourse which orality and writing have developed jointly in order to speak to each other about the past. (Portelli 1997: 5)

11

12


The method of oral history is based on oral evidence, thereby transforming the ‘objects’ of study into ‘subjects,’ making it possible to offer a new kind of history which is “not just rich, more vivid, and heart-rending, but truer” (Thompson 2000: 117). The strength of oral history, in sum, lies in offering a new perspective to history, with the oral evidence of how people lived and what they experienced, recorded and recreated in a written form, allowing the multiplicity of views to be recreated, thereby attempting to present a more realistic reconstruction of the past. Thompson (2000: 269–271) categorizes oral history methods into four different modes: 1. the single life-story narrative of an informant with a rich memory, incorporating the experiences of others. 2. a collection of stories, allowing the stories to be used in constructing a broader historical interpretation, by grouping them around common themes, as a collection of whole lives, or stories about incidents, or as a thematic montage of extracts. 3. narrative analysis, focusing on the interview itself as an oral text, and what can be learnt from its language, its themes and repetitions, and its silences. 4. the reconstructive cross-analysis, treating the oral evidence as a quarry from which to construct an argument about patterns of behaviour or events in the past. Among the four approaches, three seem to be relevant to the present study. Each one of the individual informants in the study is endowed with a rich array of memory of experiences in post-WWII Japan, forming a single life-story in its own right. At the same time, this study can also be seen as a collection of five stories, enabling a broader historical interpretation around a common theme of the interpreters’ role. And finally, the oral testimonies offered by the veteran interpreters provide invaluable evidence to construct valid discussion on the reality of interpreters at work vis-à-vis the preconceived notion of transparency and invisibility as inherent in the role of interpreters. The only approach not feasible in this study would be the third one, that of treating the interview as an oral text. Narrative analysis, with its emphasis on the specific language used in the interview, focusing on ‘discursive strategies – how the story is told’ (Riessman 1993: 30, 44), is not a realistic choice for this particular project, given that the interview transcripts are originally in Japanese, which are translated later into English, involving inevitable linguistic and cultural shifts and transfer, or in Venuti’s (2005) term, ‘loss and gain in translation.’ It is almost meaningless, for example, to look at whether the respondent used an active or passive form of a verb when talking about herself. Therefore, although this study


uses narrative evidence by way of looking for key words or repeated phrases in search of hidden meanings, it will not be based on a rigorous analytical method such as the one proposed by Riessman. Rather, the study is based on a collection of individual stories told by interpreters, to portray in a sense the interpreters’ community, focusing on the theme of interpreting in diplomacy. It will not be a collection of whole lives, but instead, it will be a thematic montage of extracts, interweaving five different stories, each unique in its own way.

1.4.2 Narratives as evidence The oral evidence in this study is collected through life-story interviews, believing that a ‘primary way individuals make sense of experience is by casting it in narrative form’ (Riessman 1993: 4). The purpose of the interviews is, then, to elicit life stories in the form of narratives.

On the definition of narrative The definition of narrative varies depending on the researcher, from a broad one in social and communication theory to a restrictive one in literary studies and linguistics (Baker 2006: 8–9). Most scholars define it as ‘discrete units, with clear beginnings and endings, as detachable from the surrounding discourse rather than as situated events’ (Riessman 1993: 17). Plummer (2001: 185), on the other hand, admits that there is little agreement as to what exactly narratives are, and describes different approaches to the study of narrative, or narratology, to use a term coined by Todorov. In literary theory, for instance, the study of narratives is directed to formal and structural matters of genre, plot, character, and trope, while in linguistics it is directed to speech acts and conversation, often through analysis of the organization of speech in conversation analysis. In psychology, what is called ‘narrative psychology’ has been developed, drawing on cognitive and discourse analysis, and philosophers have been concerned with narratives along with story, hermeneutics and texts. In sociology, rather than the analysis of the narrative itself, the attention has been more on broadening the social context. Plummer, combining these differing strands of thought, views life-story narratives as comprised of several key elements – story, plot, characters, themes, poetics, genres and points of view, with story being the most basic element (2001: 187). A ‘story’ is usually considered to be a limited genre, possibly one version of ‘narrative,’ defined as an encompassing term of rhetoric, or a wide generic term (like discourse) for recounting and relating (Riessman 1993: 41; Plummer 2001: 187). The importance of a ‘story’ – ‘someone telling someone about somebody doing

13

14


something’ (Kenyon and Randall 1997: 65) – is being increasingly recognized as the guiding unit of a life story, because ‘our life is essentially a set of stories we tell ourselves about our past, present and future’ (ibid.: 2). In this study, the term ‘narrative’ is not used as understood in literary theory nor in linguistics, but rather, narratives here are treated in the broad sense found in sociology, such as the five kinds of narratives suggested by Laurel Richardson (1990), namely: everyday life narratives, autobiographical narratives, biographical narratives, cultural narratives and collective stories. Within these five broad categories, the present study is directed toward collective stories of pioneer interpreters with a specific focus on autobiographical narratives.

On validity, reliability, and representativeness Having thus defined narratives, however, does not in itself ensure the validity of life-story interviews and narratives as legitimate evidence for research purposes. There is, first of all, a fundamental and classic question that has been posed on life-story research – is the story true? How can you tell whether a story is true or not? Or when faced with different narratives on a single event or incident, the question arises as to how we can evaluate and tell which one of the narratives is correct. To this basic question, Plummer (2001) declares forthrightly that it may not in the end matter which one of the different narratives is right, for in his view, each account represents ‘a perspective, a point of view’ (239). To prove his claim, Plummer cites the Japanese movie Rashomon by Kurosawa Akira which opens with a scene of a bandit attacking a nobleman in the forest, followed by four entirely different stories about the event, demonstrating that stories are told from different points of view which have their own truth at the time of telling (ibid.). Notwithstanding, the ‘truth’ question in life stories remains necessarily and inevitably linked to other methodological issues, such as validity, reliability, and representativeness, affecting practical problems of interviewing, transcribing, editing, translating, not in the least, the issue of interpreting the narrative and the question of the voice – whose voices are to be heard. In essence, writing life stories can be fraught with problems, for the relationship between personal narrative and history, as between autobiography and history, is complex and problematic, involving a joint narrative produced by the interviewer and the interviewed, structured by both cultural and social conventions (James 2000: 124–125). Although it is beyond the scope of the present study to discuss all the problems envisaged, it is deemed necessary to address some questions here, particularly the issue of ‘representativeness, validity and reliability.’


Attacks are often made on life history research that it provides the eccentric or the atypical, which by no means is representative. Yet, it can be argued that these criticisms fail to understand the purpose of oral history research, which is not gathering facts and generalizations, but rather, it aims to listen to those who had not been heard, thus seek the exceptional and the unique, rather than the average, for ‘one creative storyteller, brilliant verbal artist, is as rich a source of knowledge as any set of statistics’ (Portelli 1997: 58). Plummer presents a ‘continuum of representativeness’ (2001: 153) with two opposite poles, from studies with a clear idea of how typical the life stories are to studies totally disregarding generalization, and midway between these extremes is a possibility to seek out only a small number of key informants who have a profound grasping of a particular world, because individuals with such knowledge constitute a far better ‘representative sample’ than a thousand individuals who are not knowledgeable. The number of subjects in the present study is quite small – five. However, they are all gifted storytellers and ‘brilliant verbal artists,’ with profound knowledge and a rich source of experience. They may not be ‘average’ Japanese interpreters, and yet, their exceptional and unique narratives collectively present a valuable dimension in the whole picture of the society in post-war Japan, and their stories offer an insightful glimpse into the professional community of interpreters. The other major problems concern reliability and validity – two central issues of all research methods which are inextricably related to each other. Reliability is concerned with technique and consistency to ensure that if the study is conducted by someone else, similar findings would be obtained. Validity is primarily concerned with whether the research technique is actually studying what it is supposed to be studying. Obviously, in life history research, the issue of reliability can be problematic. The strength of life stories lies in the relatively free flowing talk, and an attempt for standardization of questionnaires is to invite invalidity (Plummer 2001: 155), and yet without such standardization and some form of cross-checking, attacks can be made easily in the conventional view of methodology. Many critics, for example, charge that in giving personal accounts people can ‘choose what they want to say, hold back what they do not want to say, slant what they wish, say only what they happen to recall at the moment, in short to engage in both deliberate and unwilling deception’ (Blumer 1979: xxxiv). It could be argued that ‘reliability and validity are not necessarily the appropriate evaluative standards for a life story interview’ (Atkinson 1998: 59), since conventional modes of evaluation may not be suitable for life stories and that ‘different goals and different kinds of data require different modes of evaluation’ (Plummer 2001: 153). Or it can be contended that the problem is being tackled

15

16


from the wrong end, that ‘validity should come first, reliability second’ (Plummer 2001: 155). If the subjective story is what the researcher is looking for, it will not be valid in the end to simply standardize everything in advance, and consequently, the life-story approach becomes the most valid method. Concerning the validity of personal narratives as ‘true’ evidence, The Personal Narratives Group has the following to offer: When talking about their lives, people lie sometimes, forget a lot, exaggerate, become confused, and get things wrong. Yet they are revealing truths. These truths don’t reveal the past ‘as it actually was,’ aspiring to a standard of objectivity. They give us instead the truths of our experiences […]. Unlike the Truth of the scientific ideal, the truths of personal narratives are neither open to proof nor self-evident. We come to understand them only through interpretation, paying careful attention to the contexts that shape their creation and to the world views that inform them. (1989: 261)

In social science research, three domains of bias are traditionally recognized: those arising from the subject being interviewed, from the researcher, and those arising from the subject -researcher interaction (Plummer 2001: 155). In the first domain, the subject may tell a lie, cheat, give a false story, or attempt to impress the interviewer. In particular, there is the possibility that the subject might try to create a coherent story for the interviewer’s sake. The second domain is concerned with the interviewer, who may have prejudices and prior assumptions in asking the questions. The researcher may also bring biases based on age, class, gender and general background. At the same time, an interviewer may measure differently at different times – their skill may improve and they may be better able to establish rapport, hence there is always the risk that the interviewer will be a variable filter (Webb et al. 1966: 22). The final domain is where bias may have some interplay in the very interactional encounter itself, such as the setting may be too formal to encourage friendliness or too informal to elicit an adequate response. All the interactional strategies explained by such authors as Ervin Goffman are likely to come into play. Plummer concludes, after detailed charting of all possible biases, that to purge research of all these sources of bias is to purge research of human life, treating researcher and informant as if they were mechanical robots: It presumes a ‘real’ truth may be obtained once all these biases have been removed. Yet to do this, the ideal situation would involve a researcher without a face to give off feelings, a subject with clear and total knowledge unshaped by the situation, a neutral setting, and so forth. Any ‘truth’ found in such a disembodied, neutralized context would be a very odd one indeed. It is precisely through these ‘sources of bias’ that a ‘truth’ comes to be assembled. The task of the researcher,


therefore, is not to nullify these variables, but to be aware of, describe, publicly and suggest how these have assembled a specific ‘truth.’ (2001: 156–157)

Plummer, however, does not argue for an ‘anything goes’ perspective, and offers some suggestions for validity checks, which include autocritiquing by the subjects or comparing a story with official records, although not always reliable (2001: 157–158). In sum, it is crucial to know what the goals of the research are, because the goal of the life history analysis will inevitably affect issues of validity. For example, the aim of the oral historian may be to gain information about the past, and the validity checks required are enormous. In contrast, the goal of sociological life history is to find insights into the workings of a culture, trying to explore how a person sees his/her life history at the moment of the interview. While in a psychological life story, the aim is to gain information about a person’s development, in sociological life history, the linguistic constructs that people make about their lives at a given point in time are of interest in themselves, because they can throw light on wider issues of ideology, context and language (Plummer 2001: 158–159). It is worth stating here that the present study does not aim at gaining factual information about Japanese diplomacy in the past, nor does it seek to gain knowledge about each subject’s psychological development. It is closer to sociological life history in that the aim of the study is to find insights into the role of interpreters within the socio-cultural context of Japanese foreign relations. For this purpose, not aiming at generalizations but with a specific focus on pioneer interpreters in Japan, life-story interviews are considered an appropriate method for the present study. As for the three domains of bias articulated by Plummer (2001), for the first one concerning the subjects, it may suffice here to say that whatever was related by the interviewees in this study was true for them at that moment. It captured that person’s subjective reality, his/her definition of the situation, and it merits consideration as a legitimate part of sociological investigation. The remaining two domains of bias, those of the interviewer and her interaction with her subjects, could be more problematic and call for some deliberation.

On the interviewer The Personal Narratives Group cautions that ‘sometimes the truths we see in personal narratives jar us from our complacent security as interpreters “outside” the story and make us aware that our own place in the world plays a part in our interpretation and shapes the meanings we derive from them’ (1989: 261). It is

17

18


i mportant to note here that the interviewer in the present study is not strictly ‘outside’ the story of the subjects. Despite Portelli’s claim that the life-story interviewer is ‘not usually a member of the speaker’s immediate circle’ (1997: 24), the interviewer in this study used to be a member of the same professional community – a professional conference interpreter herself. The researcher-interviewer of the present study is a Japanese female, born in Tokyo after WWII. She received simultaneous interpreter training and started to work as a conference interpreter in her second year in the Faculty of Foreign Studies at Sophia University. While still in college, she was interpreting not only at international conferences but on nationwide TV networks, including the Apollo moon landing in 1969, for which four of the subjects in the study worked as simultaneous interpreters. Around this time, a TV producer introduced the author to Kunihiro Masao, already a well established interpreter and an advisor to Foreign Minister Miki. It was then that Kunihiro predicted that the novice interpreter would eventually want to ‘sing her own song’ which, he later admitted in the interview, was really a reflection of his own feelings about himself at the time. Amomg the five subjects, Sohma Yukika is the only person the interviewer had never talked with in person, although she had seen her at a conference once, where Sohma’s daughter and the interviewer were present as interpreters. The researcher had read most, if not all, of the interviewees’ publications and newspaper/magazine articles. The five interviewees, for their part, most likely had been aware of her work, through books and articles. The general background or habitus of the interviewer being such, while much younger than the interviewees and ‘outside’ the lives of each subject, our paths have crossed at some points in our lives, as friends, as acquaintances and most of all, as members of the same professional community. When it comes to the experiences of interpreting, both the subjects and the interviewer share the same ground, their problems becoming the interviewer’s problems, their struggles reflecting her own struggles. To answer Ken Plummer’s fundamental question: why am I doing this study (2001: 215), the researcher would have to admit that she shifted her career to university teaching after 20 years of interpreting practice, starting to sing her own song, as Kunihiro so rightly predicted, and therefore the search for the identity of interpreters and their role, which is the ultimate aim of the present project, is not only for the sake of interpreters in general, but the researcher’s personal quest as well. The resulting ambience would obviously affect the interviewees and the interviews, in both positive and negative ways. On the positive side, the pioneer interpreters willingly accepted and cooperated with the research project because the interviewer is someone they knew well, at least by reputation. It would not have been easy for a complete outsider to


obtain as much cooperation for the interviews. Also, the interviewer’s full knowledge of the profession, having experienced it herself, with its problems and issues, enabled her to ask substantial questions, instead of spending time on preliminary explanations about the interpreting profession itself, making it less difficult to elicit candid and detailed answers from the subjects in a relatively short time. The insider knowledge also helped the interviewer understand and appreciate the responses given by the subjects with their hidden implications, although admittedly the problem of ‘interpreting’ the true meaning remains. Another related benefit of having a former interpreter acting as interviewer was that it contributed to creating a rapport between the interviewer and the subjects, an essential factor for life-story interviews. At the same time, however, the same elements can be seen as potentially negative factors. It is unavoidable that the interviewer might have possessed prior assumptions and prejudices about the senior interpreters, perhaps taking for granted things which she should have pursued more deeply in her questions. In addition, it is not impossible to imagine that the interviewees might have answered in such a way as to help the younger interviewer, or withheld items which they did not feel inclined to let the interviewer, an insider, know about. Above all, there was the risk of interviews becoming too informal or too friendly, with the exception of the one with Sohma, whom the interviewer had not known as well as the other four interpreters. Notwithstanding, or perhaps because of, the close involvement of the interviewer in the subjects’ world, the interviewer refrained from excessive intrusion in the interviews, and chose to ‘let the interview run’ (Evans 1973: 62–63), only occasionally steering them back to questions, never attempting to dominate the conversation, with plenty of time and plenty of tape, listening with few questions and interruptions, at the same time trying to co-construct an interview through the interaction with the interviewee. This turned out to be a challenge. On the one hand, an effort was made to produce meaning through interaction. On the other hand, however, the interviewer made a conscious effort not to interact excessively, trying to avoid having the research interview turn into a friendly chat between two insiders in the same profession. In a sense, the interviewer positioned herself as an ethnographer and an interpreting observer (Clifford 1986: 17), although the mere presence of an interviewer who used to be an interpreter herself might have affected the responses in some intangible ways. In Plummer’s classification of a continuum of involvement, from the very passive ‘Stranger Role,’ through the ‘Acquaintance Role’ and to the most active ‘Friendship Role’ (2001: 209), it was inevitable that the interviewer assumed the ‘Friendship Role’ from the beginning, which may not be an entirely negative element in

19

20 Voices of the Invisible Presence

this kind of research. To gain subjective views aimed at in oral history, intensive involvement between researcher and her subjects is a must. It may be argued that an objective, emotionally distanced, observer with a tape recorder, asking questions for a subject to tell a story will lack ‘the depth and detail that could be gleaned if the researcher was immersed in the subject’s world for a long time and tried to build up an in-depth description from the inside’ (ibid.). And this, hopefully, was what happened with an insider interviewing the pioneer interpreters.

On writing In the actual writing of the life stories, particularly in dealing with the problem of editing and interpretation, it was helpful to view writing as social acts – something formative, shaping the knowledge including life narrative, as opposed to writing as a reflection of research. The underlying philosophy here is that writing not only captures reality but helps construct it (Plummer 2001: 171). Based on his model of ‘continuum of constructions,’ Plummer presents three distinct approaches to interpretation and presentation of the oral document: leaving the voices unedited for the reader to ponder, framing the documents by the interpretation, or placing the interpretation in a commentary at the end of the document (ibid.: 177–180). Placed on a ‘continuum of construction,’ the approaches range from researchers imposing their analytic devices on the subject, to the subject’s own world being presented ‘uncontaminated.’ In the middle of the continuum lies ‘systematic thematic analysis,’ where ‘the subjects are allowed to speak for themselves but where their voices get organized around themes’ (ibid.). The present study basically adopts this ‘systematic thematic analysis’ approach with as little intervention as possible to keep the voices of the pioneers intact, while at the same time intervening to organize their narratives around specific themes to allow for interpretation on the part of the interviewer/writer.

On translation of the transcripts In the process of writing, the translation of narratives can be a problem in itself. The task of translating life stories entails wide and complicated issues of language and culture, affecting the interpretation and the analysis of the narratives. Clearly, all life stories are deeply rooted in particular cultures, and the act of translating narratives, as in any translation, is an attempt and an endeavour to recreate the language, embedded in the source culture, in the target language as much as


ossible, without losing its original meanings and yet making it understandable p for the target reader to appreciate the story. The problem with the present case was not only a matter of translating Japanese into English, although that itself was a task fraught with difficulties. It was also a matter of being sensitive to the language of the educated elderly professionals, of knowing the nuances of Japanese society before, during, and after World War II, and trying not to lose the feel of the life, and the talk, of the five pioneers. Each subject spoke with a distinct narrative style, from Kunihiro’s abundant use of words and phrases originating in classical Chinese to a lively Tokyo dialect of Muramatsu. In the end, the translation method was selected based on the text type. Katharina Reiss (1971) categorized biography as an expressive text, together with such texts as play and poetry (see also Chesterman 1989, 1997). Life-stories, understood broadly here as biographical narratives and biography, express the subjects’ attitude, and as such, the focus of the translation will be more on form, requiring an ‘identifying’ method, with the translator adopting the standpoint of the source text author (see Munday 2001: 75, 2008: 72–75), in this case the pioneer interpreters. Whether or not the attempt yielded a successful product is hard to tell. The translation method for narratives, particularly life-story interviews with the historical, the social and the cultural coming into play, between languages as distant as Japanese and English, is one area which merits more attention and further study.

1.4.3 Life-story interviews The life-story interviews in this study focus on the following three points: 1. What kind of people became diplomatic interpreters? What kind of background did they have? How did they acquire the linguistic, communicative and cultural competence needed for interpreting between Japanese and English? 2. What specific efforts were exerted in trying to bridge the gap between two different languages and cultures? 3. How did the interpreters perceive their roles? Did they consider themselves as ‘transparent’ and ‘invisible conduits’? Or did they position themselves as ‘cultural mediators’? Specific questions were formulated in an effort to solicit answers to these questions, although the intention was to prepare a list of possible questions, close to interview guidelines. While they were not as comprehensive and elaborate as

21

22


those suggested by Thompson (2000: 309–323), they were prepared to guide the interviews to get the maximum outcome, without losing focus in the free-flowing interviews. Therefore, questions were worded and changed flexibly, to allow for ‘a reflex reflexivity’ (Bourdieu 1996). The following are the guidelines for questions, originally in Japanese and translated into English here: 1. 2.

Acquiring interpreter competence (1) English proficiency and cultural literacy (2) When and why did you want to become an interpreter? (3) How old were you when you became an interpreter? (4) What kind of interpreter training did you receive? Interpreting at diplomatic meetings and negotiations (1) The first time you interpreted Age, place, topic of the meeting, simultaneous or consecutive? (2) The first diplomatic meeting you worked as an interpreter Age, place, topic of the meeting, simultaneous or consecutive? (3) The most difficult meeting or negotiation (4) The most successful interpreting at a diplomatic meeting (5) The most impressive meeting (6) How did you try to infer and understand the speaker’s intention and implication, and how did you actually translate it? (7) How did you perceive the interpreter’s positioning? Transparent or cultural mediator? Priority on the speaker or on the listeners?

The sample questions were sent to each subject in advance so that they would be able to prepare if they so wished. As it turned out, all preferred to speak without notes. The interviews were conducted individually on separate occasions. Nishiyama, Muramatsu and Kunihiro suggested that they should be interviewed at the International House of Japan. Komatsu chose to come to the university where the interviewer teaches, and Sohma invited the interviewer to the Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation. Each interview lasted approximately four to five hours. All of them were tape-recorded, transcribed, with some minor deletions at the

. A non-profit organization in Roppongi, Tokyo, dedicated to promoting international exchange and cooperation, established in 1952 by Matsumoto Shigeharu. . Located in the Kensei Kaian, near the Diet. Sohma serves as its governor.


request of the interviewees, and later translated into English to be used as primary material in this research. While the five interpreters have publications of their own, including books, memoirs, anecdotes, essays, teaching materials and papers, the primary source used in the study remains ‘oral evidence’ from the life-story interviews. At the same time, however, validity checks were carried out comparing the stories with their own writing, as well as against documents written by other people about the pioneer interpreters. Official records were consulted when necessary, although their problem in this particular study was not the unreliability of official records as some researchers contend (see Plummer 2001: 158), but was mainly their absence in relation to diplomatic or conference interpreting. In the interviews, all five interviewees seemed quite at ease in telling their stories, revealing remarkable memory and eloquence. Since the overall purpose of the interview was to elicit their life stories, the interviewer followed what Bourdieu (1993) proposed in his life-story research, namely, a relationship of ‘active and methodological listening,’ and although retaining a semi-structured format, making sure the key questions were covered, the interviews became close to free-flowing, if not a non-interfering laissez-faire of the non-directive interview. Thompson explains that a free-flowing interview ‘can be effective when the main purpose of the interview is less to seek information than to record a “narrative interview,” a “subjective” record of how one man or woman looks back on their life as a whole, or part of it’ (2000: 227). Also, as Portelli warns of the ‘fiction of non-interference’ (1997: 11–12), the actual interviews certainly were not simple ‘questions and answers.’ It was more of an authentic dialogue with questions arising from the answers given, with constant exchanges and interaction, turning the session into an in-depth interview. This somewhat complicated and ambivalent method of interviewing, in the end, helped to yield a productive outcome, in light of the specific purpose and the theme of the life-story interviews conducted. Despite occasional deviations from the prepared questions, with interviewees at times speaking at length on seemingly irrelevant topics and giving only brief answers to very important questions in the interviewer’s mind, each of the interviews proved to be very much a learning experience for the interviewer. The narratives of interpreters are used extensively in the study, although naturally not all were cited. The transcripts in Japanese were translated into English, and both versions were checked and approved by the subjects, with a minimum amount of alterations. The unabridged final versions, both in Japanese and in English, are kept for record, along with the recorded interviews transferred onto CD. The subjects have been fully informed of the purpose of the research and gave their consent, in writing, to use the recorded interviews and the transcripts for the

23

24


purpose of research, revealing their own names, instead of staying anonymous. As Muramatsu commented at the end of the interview session, they were happy to ‘become part of history.’

1.4.4 Profiles of five pioneer interpreters in Japan Five diplomatic interpreters were interviewed for this study, their life stories taperecorded, transcribed and analyzed. They are Nishiyama Sen, Sohma Yukika, Muramatsu Masumi, Kunihiro Masao and Komatsu Tatsuya, all prominent figures as pioneer interpreters – the first generation of simultaneous interpreters in Japan. Nishiyama Sen was born in 1911 in Utah, USA, to Japanese parents. He received schooling as a Japanese-American and earned a master’s degree in electrical engineering. He came back to Japan shortly before the war and started to work at Electrotechnical Laboratory, the Ministry of Communications, which eventually led him to work at the General Headquarters of the Allied Occupation Forces. He was ultimately employed at the U.S. Embassy, where he served as an official interpreter for U.S. ambassadors to Japan, among them Edwin O. Reischauer. When the 1969 Apollo moon landing was broadcast, he performed simultaneous interpreting on the NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai=Japan Broadcasting Corporation) nationwide TV network, which made him a national figure. People still call him “the Apollo simultaneous interpreter.” He died on July 2nd, 2007, at the age of 95. Sohma Yukika was born in January 1912, in Tokyo. Her father, Ozaki Gakudo Yukio, is regarded as the “father of constitutional government” in Japan. Her mother Theodora being half British, she was raised to be bilingual. This unique upbringing, with her familiarity with politics because of her father’s profession, led her to interpreting for various political leaders, including Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke. She has four children, and her eldest daughter Fujiko became a conference and diplomatic interpreter. Sohma is presently better known as president of the Nan-min wo Tasukeru Kai (AAR=Association for Aid and Relief, Japan), which she established in 1979 to help refugees in and outside of Japan. Sohma died on November 8th, 2008, at the age of 96. Muramatsu Masumi was born in July 1930, in Tokyo. He became a typist at the General Headquarters of the Occupation Forces, before working for the U.S. Department of State as an escort interpreter for Japan’s productivity missions. After working in the U.S. for over a decade, he came back to Japan and founded Simul

. In this paper, Japanese names are presented in the Japanese order, with family name first, followed by given name, as proposed by Kokugo Shingikai (the National Language Council of Japan) in 2000.


International with his colleagues from the State Department. He was the chief i nterpreter for almost all the summit meetings, along with other conferences and diplomatic negotiations, and is widely known as “Mr. Simultaneous Interpreter.” He established his own NPO, MM Cross-Cultural Forum, in 2001 and continued to be active lecturing on interpreting and humour, until he had a stroke in 2004. Kunihiro Masao, dubbed the “God of Simultaneous Interpreting,” was born in Tokyo, August 1930. He studied cultural anthropology at the University of Hawaii, taught at universities in Japan, and is distinguished visiting professor at the University of Edinburgh. He was Prime Minister Miki‘s official aide and advisor, and in 1989, was elected a member of the House of Councillors in the Diet. He continues to be a strong advocate of peace and Japan’s Peace Constitution. He has published extensively, more than one hundred books on topics ranging from foreign relations to English language education, and has translated numerous books, from Edward Hall’s The Silent Language to David Crystal’s English as a Global Language. Komatsu Tatsuya was born in 1934, in Nagoya. His initial attempt at interpreting was at annual Hiroshima Conferences against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, when he was studying English at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. After working for the U.S. Department of State as an interpreter for productivity study teams, he came back to Japan to help establish Simul International. Later, he turned to teaching at Meikai University. Drawing on his many years of experience as a conference and diplomatic interpreter, he teaches and writes actively on interpreting. In 2005, he established CAIS (Center for the Advancement of Interpreting Skills), an NPO for training and accrediting business interpreters, and became its founding director.

1.5

Conclusion

Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, it seems as if interpreters are almost universally considered to be invisible. In Japan, as in many other countries, interpreters are deemed invisible, commonly depicted as kurogo/kuroko, an invisible figure dressed in black (kuro) attire (go) in kabuki theater. The aim of the present study is to highlight this invisible presence, making them visible by collecting the living memories of diplomatic interpreters through life-story interviews. Specifically, five pioneer simultaneous interpreters were interviewed, to listen to the voices of the invisible. The primary questions the study addresses are to find out what kind of people became interpreters in Japan after WWII, why and how they became interpreters; to examine how they perceived their roles as interpreters; how they actually positioned themselves in diplomatic

25


interpreting; and finally, to illuminate the role of interpreters with a specific focus on diplomatic interpreting in the Japanese context, in the hope of gaining some insight into the issue of the role of interpreters. The five pioneer interpreters in the present study were deeply involved in the vital moments of Japanese diplomatic history immediately after WWII and during the time of Japan’s reconstruction. In order to uncover the contribution they made in post-World War II Japan, illuminating the place of interpreters in Japan’s foreign relations, the present study adopts the oral history method, using as raw material the life experience of people. Interviews were conducted to elicit life stories as ‘oral evidence’ in the form of narratives, specifically as (1) single life-story narratives, (2) collection of stories, and also for (3) reconstructive cross-analysis.The life-story interviews were semistructured, allowing interviews to become free-flowing, with active and methodological listening and minimum intrusion on the part of the interviewer, despite her involvement as an insider in the profession. The central theme of the study, namely the issue of the role of interpreters, would call for an examination of interpreters as individuals and it is only natural that in the following chapter, we should have a look at socio-historical context in which the five pioneer interpreters were nurtured.

chapter 2

A brief history of interpreting/ translation in Japan

In the Japanese language, words such as ‘yaku’ (a noun form) or ‘yaku-su’ (a verb) cover both interpreting and translation, but more often than not, different terms separate written translation “hon-yaku” from oral interpreting “tsũ-yaku,” with sign language interpreting called “shuwa (sign language) tsũ-yaku.” When you talk about people involved, although there is a generic term ‘yaku-sha,’ oftentimes it connotes written translation rather than oral interpreting, which is generally referred to as ‘tsũ-yaku-sha’ (a person who interpretes). In addition, some difference in status is marked in words employed. A translator for written translation is either called hon-yaku-ka for literary translators, implying similar status to writers called sakka in Japanese, or hon-yaku-sha, a neutral word, including technical translators, but never simply hon-yaku. In addressing the interpreter, however, the word tsũ-yaku (interpreting) is commonly used, if not somewhat derogatory tsũben in older times, or more recent and official tsũyaku-nin in court interpreting. Nothwithstanding these differences in terminology, both translation and interpreting have played a crucial role in the history of Japan. In ancient times, Chinese culture was introduced to Japan through translation, and even during sakoku period when Japan was officially closed to the outside world, interpreters in Nagasaki acted as mediators in trade with the Netherlands, acting as a point of contact with Western culture. It would not have been feasible to modernize the country at the time of Meiji Restoration without translating a body of literature into Japanese, thus enabling the nation-builders to learn about Western civilization in a variety of fields, as well as enriching the Japanese vocabulary. In contemporary Japan, interpreting and translation is a prerequisite for various intercultural contacts, from diplomacy and business to international conferences and news broadcasts, as well as at immigration offices, courts, hospitals and schools. This chapter presents a brief overview of the history of interpreting and translation in Japan to illustrate the context in which the pioneer interpreters in the study were nurtured and worked. Although Ruth A. Roland dedicates 10 pages to . From 1639 to 1867.

28


the Japanese situation in her Interpreters as Diplomats (1982), the concise description, not surprisingly, is mainly based on the Western source and focuses more on individuals such as João Rodrigues, Moriyama Einosuke, Henry Heusken and Earnest Satow, rather than placing interpreting as a system within a wider social context. Also, her brief account does not extend beyond 19th century Meiji era. This chapter, therefore, attempts to fill some lacuna observed in Roland’s well documented study. Section 1 introduces Nagasaki tsũji, interpreters in Chinese, Portuguese and Dutch, followed by Section 2 on the role translation played in the modernization of Meiji Japan. Section 3 elaborates interpreting in relation with war and peace, including the translation of the Japanese government’s reply to the Potsdam Declaration and interpreting at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East after World War II, going on to the impact of simultaneous interpreting at the time of Apollo moon landing in Section 4. Section 5 presents a prominent case of mistranslation in Japanese diplomatic history – the interpreting of a politician’s rhetoric at the time of Prime Minister Sato’s meeting with President Nixon. In Section 6, interpreter training and its implication for foreign language education is discussed, finally, Section 7 offers a brief overview of Interpreting Studies in Japan.

2.1

Interpreters in Nagasaki

The history of interpreters in Japan started with Chinese interpreters (Toh-tsũji), whose main work was to help with interpreting and translation that was needed for trade with China. The major port for foreign trade in the 17th and 18th centuries was Nagasaki in Kyushu, in southern Japan. The central Tokugawa government in Edo placed it under their direct control, and along with this, in 1604 the government officially acknowledged the existence of interpreters, institutionalizing them into the bureaucratic system. When the government started to trade with Portugal, Portuguese interpreters came into existence, later switching to the Dutch language, as the Tokugawa government decided to close the entire country to contacts with Christianity and other foreign influences, except for Holland (called Oranda in Japanese). The features of Nagasaki interpreters, or Oranda tsũji (Dutch language officers) as they came to be known, were threefold. Their work entailed not only interpreting and translating but also administrative work in connection with

. Now called Tokyo.

Chapter 2. A brief history of interpreting/translation in Japan

iplomacy, trade, or anything to do with foreign relations. Secondly, they were not d freelancers as are most modern interpreters. They were local officials employed by the central government, and as such, their loyalty was unquestionably to the government of Japan, demonstrating that the notion of neutrality is not a traditional one but rather a modernistic concept. The final feature was the fact that Oranda tsũji was hereditary and about twenty families from the educated official’s class held the position throughout the Edo era. A male offspring of a tsũji family was destined to succeed the tsûji father, and when they were not blessed with a male child, they adopted a boy from some other family to inherit the position, as was commonly observed in the feudal Japanese society. Hayashi Rikuro (2000) studied the life of his interpreter ancestor Lin Ko-en, born in 1598 in China, who came to Japan in 1623 starting a Toh-tsũji family, and describes the interpreting profession in feudal Japan, indicating that it had been a highly organized system from quite early on, with elaborate hierarchical ranking, training and testing, as well as detailed ‘code of conduct’ with Oh-tsũji, chief interpreter, overseeing the entire profession. Also, Katagiri Kazuo (1995) depicts how an Oranda tsũji worked and contributed to intercultural contacts during the sakoku days, such as at a historic meeting between Arai Hakuseki, a scholar advisor to the shogun as well as one of the greatest thinkers in Japan, and Giovanni Battista Sidotti, a missionary from Rome. As senior Oranda tsũji, Imamura Gen-uemon led the tsũji group in mediating the series of interviews with Sidotti. The interviews are generally regarded as a landmark in the intellectual history of Japan, and the interpreted event can be considered ‘a prototype of dialogue interpreting, the purpose of which was first and foremost to enable communication in an encounter of different cultures’ (Semizu 2001: 144). This is but one example of how studying interpreting in the historical context ‘can be one way to re-examine the assumptions and expectations made today about interpreters and interpreting (ibid.). The last of Nagasaki tsũji known are Moriyama Einosuke and Hori Tatsunosuke, who were engaged in diplomacy after Commodore Perry came, and wrote dictionaries and textbooks in early Meiji. Exactly when and how Nagasaki tsûji vanished from the diplomatic scene remains to be studied.

2.2

Translation and the modernization in Meiji Japan

From the earliest days in the Nara period to the Edo era, Japan has been digesting Chinese culture, via translation, not in unlimited acculturation but in a selective way, transforming Chinese culture when necessary (Inami 2003: 37; see also Gottlieb 2005; Wakabayashi 2005), including the autonomous usage of Chinese words (Kango) and the characters (Kanji), which have been used to create new words to

29

30


express new concepts, culminating in the Meiji period (Yanabu 1982, 1998). The earlier intercultural contacts and experiences formed the foundation for understanding the new horizons of modern sciences, when Japan established diplomatic ties with the West in the 1850s and decided to introduce Western knowledge to modernize the nation (Ohsawa 2005: 136). Kato Shuichi, a contemporary critic, emphasizes the role of translation in relation with Meiji modernization, pointing out that in 19th century Japan, while there was abundant information on China, without too many Chinese people actually coming, Western people suddenly started to appear, and yet not much was known about the West, which prompted Japan to quickly gather information (Maruyama & Kato 1998: 5–8). This sense of crisis led to the Meiji Restoration, after which the government not only sent more than 50 students abroad, but they also dispatched Iwakura Mission to inspect and study Western civilization. The unprecedented mission included approximately 50 government leaders and intellectuals, who toured the United States and Europe for one year and 10 months, and brought back volumes of books to be translated to learn wide ranging aspects of the West.

2.2.1 Fukuzawa Yukichi These movements, immediately after the opening of the country, reflect an active quest on the part of Japanese intellectuals to learn from the West (e.g. Haga 2000: 4–7). Fukuzawa Yukichi can be cited as a good example. Fukuzawa, at the age of 25, visited Yokohama one day and was shocked to find that the Dutch language he laboured to learn for several years was of no use – he could not read the signs and he could not communicate with foreigners – they were all using English. Fukuzawa reminisces in his autobiography (1899/1980) that he was disappointed, but the next day, was already determined to start studying English. He first went to ask Nagasaki tsũji Moriyama to teach him English, but the interpreter was too busy with all his diplomatic work, and finally Fukuzawa decided to study English on his own, using two Dutch-English conversation books he had bought in Yokohama, and John Holtrop’s English and Dutch dictionary which he obtained later, reading and translating day and night, totally absorbed in English (ibid.: 99–102). Nine years later, he founded Keio University, where he himself taught English, becoming a pioneer in English studies in Japan (Saito 2001). Fukuzawa traveled overseas three times in eight years, crossing the Pacific first on the Kanrin-maru in 1860. His second overseas trip was in 1862 as a member of the . From 1868 to 1912.


European mission sent by the government, and upon returning from a year-long stay in Europe, Fukuzawa wrote about his interpretation of Western civilization,10 and translated Political Economy (1853) by John Hill Burton, a 19th century Scottish historian and economist. Both of these publications had a profound effect in Japan, shortening the cultural and psychological distance between Japan and the West (Haga 2000: 6). Meiji intellectuals, including Fukuzawa, contributed to coining new words, using Chinese characters, in the social and natural sciences and the humanities, introducing new concepts such as society, individual, company and bank, among others (Yanabu 1998: 112). The salient feature of the Meiji era in its efforts to modernize was its ‘honyaku bunka (translation culture)’ or ‘honyaku-shugi (translationism)’ (Maruyama and Kato 1998: 43–47), translating a tremendous amount of foreign literature to provide the Japanese people with the opportunity to come in contact with Western history, science, art, literature, thought and culture.

2.2.2 Tsuda Sen Less widely known than Fukuzawa Yukichi but an important figure in interpreting history is Tsuda Sen, initially a government-employed interpreter, who introduced American-style agricultural science to Japan. Whereas Fukuzawa’s idea of modernizing Japan was to strengthen military power and become a member of the West rather than staying part of Asia, Tsuda believed in making the country prosperous by modernizing agriculture and introducing Christianity (Takasaki 2008; see also Whitney 1979). Tsuda Sen was born in Sakura, Chiba Prefecutre, in 1837, toward the end of Edo period, as the third son of a middle rank samurai family. He was 17 years old when Commodore Perry came to Japan in 1853. The actual sight of a huge ‘black ship’ shocked Tsuda and motivated him to study Western technology. He went to Edo at the age of 21 and first learned the Dutch language, later studied English using an elementary grammar textbook written by John Manjiro, a former fisherman who was rescued by a whaling ship and educated in the United States for ten years, before he came back to Japan. Later, Tsuda moved to Yokohama and learned English from a British doctor. In 1861, he was appointed interpreter at the government’s foreign office. Among his colleagues was Fukuzawa Yukichi, and in 1867, they both went to the United States as interpreters for the government mission to purchase weaponry and a warship. It is reported that Fukuzawa’s English proficiency proved to 10. Seiyo jijou was published in 1866 and its second volume in 1868.

31

32


be insufficient for official interpreting and translation, particularly translating from Japanese to English, obliging interpreter Tsuda to be in charge of translation, while one of his colleagues Shaku Shinpachi, already working at the American legation in Japan, did most of the interpreting. Ono Tomogoro, the head of the mission, complained that Fukuzawa spent most of his time buying tons of books for his own use, without doing his assigned work (Fujii 1985: 117–121). This journey to the United States made Tsuda aware of the importance of agriculture, which prompted him later to establish an agricultural institute Gakuno-sha, which not only studied agriculture, but published journals, sold seeds brought from the U. S., and ran an agricultural college in Tokyo. As a Christian, Tsuda Sen was active in starting Bible classes, and he also helped establish church affiliated schools for women as well as a school for the blind. He died in 1908 at the age of 70. Among his twelve children, the most famous is his second daughter Umeko, who was sent to the United States at the age of six as the youngest of the five female students, and who, in 1900, founded Joshi Eigaku-juku, a women’s college for the study of English, now Tsuda College (Ohba 1993/1996). The eldest son died young, and it was Tsuda’s second son Jiro, who succeeded Tsuda’s enterprises, after studying agriculture in Massachusetts, U.S. One of his grandchildren, Tsuda Mamoru, became a judicial interpreter/translator in Japanese-English and Japanese-Filipino, founding in 2005 a graduate program of interpreting and translation studies at Osaka University of Foreign Studies, now part of Osaka University.

2.3

War and peace

Translation and interpreting ‘participate’ in the process of conflicts and wars, from declaring a war, sustaining it, and to ending it (Baker 2006: 2). Although naturally, access to the actual scene where interpreters perform their work is rather limited in combats, some evidence related to the Second World War has been documented, such as memoirs published by a former Japanese army interpreter Nagase Takashi. Nagase was assigned interpreting work in the interrogation of a British communications soldier in 1943. Long after the war, in 1993, the two met again by the river Quai in Thailand, and for the first time Nagase realized that the British soldier had been tormented by the memory of the torture all those years, represented by the ‘voice’ of the interpreter, none other than Nagase himself. When the British soldier learned that Nagase had been working for Thailand in the act of apologizing for what he had alone during the war, he forgave Nagase, and they eventually co-authored a book entitled Rikugun Tsûyaku no Tsumi (The Sin of an Army Interpreter) (Hirano 2008).


2.3.1 The Potsdam Declaration The Potsdam Declaration, designed to end World War II, brought forth issues of translation in diplomacy, such as how the English word ‘subject to’ became controversial until it was translated into acceptable Japanese. A more serious one concerns the translation of the Japanese reply ‘mokusatsu’ into English, which some believe led to the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Truman, on behalf of the Allied countries of the United States, Great Britain and China, issued the Potsdam Declaration July 26, 1945, urging Japan to surrender unconditionally: We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese forces, […]. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction. (Department of State Bulletin, xiii)

The Declaration contained no provision guaranteeing continuation of the emperor system, ‘which was known to be key to obtaining surrender. Neither did it hint at the existence of an atomic bomb nor any intent to use such a weapon on Japan’ (The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum).11 The declaration was received by Domei Press at 4:30 am, July 27, 1945, and was immediately reported to the government, according to the chronicle of Jiji-Ttsushin (1995). Japan’s Prime Minister at the time, 77 year-old Suzuki Kantaro, held a press conference on July 28 at 4:00 pm, and in his answer to reporters’ questions about the Potsdam Declaration, supposedly said: My thinking is that the joint declaration is virtually the same as the Cairo Declaration.12 The government of Japan does not consider it having any crucial value. We simply mokusatsu-suru. The only alternative for us is to be determined to continue our fight till the end. (Naka 2000: 31, my translation)

Suzuki’s remark was translated into English by Domei Press, most likely by Hasegawa Saiji as: ‘the Japanese government ignores this, and we are determined to continue our fight in the war till the end’ (Torikai 2001/2004a, my translation). As soon as this was broadcast, AP and Reuter covered it in U.S. and UK press, reporting that ‘Japan rejects the Potsdam Declaration,’ to use the word ‘reject’ instead of ‘ignore’ (Naka 2000: 32), or as the headline in an American newspaper stated, ‘Japan Officially Turns Down Allied Surrender Ultimatum’ (July 30, 11. Retrieved June13, 2006 from http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/ visit_e/vist_fr_e.html. 12. Cairo Declaration was signed in Cairo, November 27, 1943, by Great Britain, the United States and China.

33

34


1945, The New York Times). It is said that this news infuriated the Americans and the British, prompting President Truman to decide using atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. Later, Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro was blamed for using the word ‘mokusatu’ in the first place. Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori, a pacifist diplomat, wrote a memoir13 in which he criticized the Prime Minister for giving in to the hawkish leaders of the army (Naka 2000: 34–37). Nakamura Takafusa explains that the Prime Minister initially wished to have the Potsdam Declaration reported in the newspaper without any comments from the government, so as to indirectly tell the people the war was coming to an end. However, the army insisted on issuing an official comment, and Prime Minister Suzuki wrote in his memoir how sorry he was about it (1993: 337). While the dictionary definition of ‘mokusatsu’ is ‘silence’ as a noun or ‘to ignore’ as a verb,14 Ohno Susumu,15 an expert on the Japanese language, argues that it is a delicate word, reflecting the mentality of the Japanese people in interpersonal communication. ‘Mokusatsu’ is pretending not to notice something or somebody, so as to avoid downgrading yourself by directly responding, especially when you feel you are on the losing side. Therefore, a person would resort to ‘mokusatsu,’ not accepting, not refusing, but simply pretending not to see (Torikai 2004a: 31–32). If the word ‘mokusatsu’ is as complex as Ohno contends, it certainly is different from what the English word ‘ignore’ means – ‘not to know’ or ‘to refuse acceptance of; to refuse to take notice of.’16 According to Nishiyama, what the Prime Minister had in mind was simply to wait and see, but that the circumstances forced him to use a word that did not sound too weak, hence the choice of the word ‘mokusatsu.’ His suggestion for the alternative translation is to ‘give it the silent treatment’ (1979: 152). Hasegawa Saiji of Domei Press, who allegedly translated ‘mokusatsu’ as ‘ignore,’ remarked unofficially to some NHK staff in the 1970s, that he should have translated ‘mokusatsu’ as ‘no comment’ but that nobody in Japan at that time knew the expression (Torikai 2004a: 29–30).

13. Togo Shigenori wrote the memoir while he was being admitted to an American army hospital as a war criminal, and the manuscript was handed to his daughter in 1950, five days before his death. It was later compiled as Jidai no Ichimen: Taisen Gaiko no Shuki (An Aspect of the Time: Memoir on Diplomacy during the World War). 14. Taishukan Genius Japanese to English Dictionary, 2000. 15. Ohno Susumu, professor emeritus of Gakushuin University, died July 2008. 16. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 1991.


This is a classic example of translation at work in the sensitive negotiations in diplomacy, at times inviting grave consequences. Berlitz’s Sekai Kotoba Hyakka17 has an entry for ‘mokusatsu’ explaining: If one Japanese word had been translated differently, the atomic bombs might not have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (ibid.: 34–35, my translation). It may well be argued that this is too naïve a view of international politics.The word ‘mokusatsu’ translated as ‘reject’ at best provided a good excuse to drop the bombs, but there is much evidence to show that U.S. President Truman would have dropped the atomic bombs with or without the word ‘mokusatsu’ in Japan’s reply. Some claim the U.S. government was obliged to actually use the atomic bombs, which cost a huge amount of federal money to develop. Others see it as the result of power politics, in American efforts to end the war without the intervention of the Soviet Union. Martin Sherwin (1995), for one, gives a detailed account of the U.S. decision-making process in his article ‘Hiroshima at Fifty: The Politics of History and Memory.’ According to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, the U.S. was considering several ways of bringing the war to an end: invade the Japanese mainland in November 1945, ask the Soviet Union to join the war against Japan, assure continuation of the emperor system, or use the atomic bomb: After Germany’s surrender, tension mounted between the U.S. and the Soviet Union regarding the disposition of postwar Europe. The U.S. began worrying about the increased influence the Soviets would obtain if they joined the war against Japan in mid-August as planned. The U.S. believed that if the atomic bomb ended the war, the U.S. would establish postwar supremacy over the Soviets. In addition, the atomic bomb had cost 2 billion dollars and mobilized, at its peak, over 120,000 people. Linking this weapon to the end of the war would help justify that expenditure. In addition to the desire to force Japan’s surrender, these considerations led the U.S. to proceed with the atomic bombings.18

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the translation of a mere one word can have incredibly profound consequences, possibily changing the status quo for better or for worse. The word ‘mokusatsu’ is a small one, and yet it is endowed with all the implications of Japanese culture, representing personal relationships inherent in the Japanese society. It was unfortunate the word was translated literally by a journalist without paying heed to the pragmatic implicature of the word and its usage. More fundamentally, however, it was indeed unfortunate that the 17. Published in Japanese in 1983. The title means “World Encyclopaedia of Words.” 18. Retrieved June 13, 2006 from http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/ visit_e/vist_fr_e.html.

35

36


particular word was selected for domestic reasons, when the Japanese government should have been aware that it would be translated into English. Clearly, there was lack of understanding about the importance of the role of translation, with its possibilities as well as its limits.

2.3.2 International Military Tribunal for the Far East Despite the inevitable roles played by interpreters and translators during the war, it was after World War II that interpreters’ work was highlighted. The first such scene was at the Tokyo War Crimes Trial (International Military Tribunal for the Far East), immediately after the Second World War, from May 3, 1946 to April 16, 1948. There were 28 war leaders who were tried, including Tojo Hideki. While in Europe, simultaneous interpreting was introduced at the multilingual Nuremberg Trials, involving German, French, Russian and English, at the Tokyo Tribunal, despite the first appearance of the interpreters’ booth (IBM public address system) in Japan, interpreters read the translations of the documents, ‘synchronizing the original,’ and the direct, cross, and redirect examinations and other improvised testimonies or questions were interpreted consecutively in the booth (Watanabe 1998: 104–113). The number of Japanese-English interpreters varied from 28 recorded in the transcripts to about 10 who worked throughout the trial. The Japanese nationals hired as interpreters were Japanese government officials with overseas experience, those who were educated in the United States or who grew up in bilingual households and were educated at international schools in Japan. Also present were a few interpreters of Chinese, French, Russian and Dutch. In addition, there were monitors to check the interpreters’ performance and language arbiters for disputes over interpreting and translation. For monitors and arbiters, the Language Section in charge of the tribunal recruited those who worked as translators and interpreters in military intelligence during the war and were then working for the occupational operations in Japan as military personnel, or discharged civilians after the war. Four second generation Japanese-Americans were selected as monitors, while U.S. Army Major Lardner Moore and Captain Edward Kraft were appointed as language arbiter (Takeda 2007: 56–57). Although obviously the news about the Tribunal was reported widely in Japan, none of the five pioneers interviewed even mentioned the Tribunal in their talk. Presumably, they were either too young, as Komatsu, or too busy with their life, as in Sohma’s case, trying to make a living and rearing small children. When asked later about the Tribunal, Komatsu replied that he was in the 5th and 6th grade in elementary school and only remembers the news reporting of an attempted


suicide of Tojo. Kunihiro likewise remembers the news of Tojo, which he read in the newspaper, only one page printed on both sides those days. Kunihiro recalls that many people complained about the Tribunal as the victorious side punishing the defeated, but that his father kept saying it couldn’t be helped because aftere all “We lost the war.” Kunihiro added that, even if he had been older, he would not have wanted to interpret at such a trial. Komatsu revealed that he became interested in the interpreters at the Tokyo Tribunal, when a novelist Yamazaki Toyoko came to ask him about the psychology of interpreters when she was writng “Futatsu no Sokoku (Two Native Countries),” a novel about a Japanese-American who worked as a language officer during the war and later as a monitor at the Tribunal. Eventually, Komatsu became acquainted with three of the Tribunal’s interpreters – Oka Takashi, who became a journalist, first for the Christian Science Monitor in Boston and then for the New York Times Tokyo Bureau; Taji Makoto who worked as an interpreter for the Japan Productivity Mission just as Komatsu, and Shimanouchi Toshiro, a diplomat, who confided that at the beginning of the Tokyo Tribunal, before booths were installed, the room was too noisy to hear what judges or defendants were saying (Komatsu 2003: 71–77). Outside the courtroom, Japan’s defeat in WWII brought about numerous contacts of varying degrees at different levels between Japan and the Occupation Forces, necessitating interpreting and translation. Muramatsu and Kunihiro both worked for the Allied Forces, Muramatsu as an interpreter and Kunihiro as a translator. The older Nishiyama was by chance asked to offer interpreting service for the Occupation Forces, and devised his own way of simultaneous interpreting.

2.4

Simultaneous interpreting in Japan

Japanese simultaneous interpreters emerged in different venues after WWII. The first was at an MRA (Moral Re-Armament) conference in 1950 in Caux, Switzerland, where Nishiyama and Sohma tried simultaneous interpreting in a booth. The other site was the Department of State in the United States, which recruited young eligible Japanese to be trained to accompany visiting productivity teams from Japan to reconstruct the war-torn nation. Muramatsu, Kunihiro and Komatsu are all offspring of this so-called ‘productivity interpreter team.’ The first time simultaneous interpreting was tried at government-level conferences was in the early 1960s for U.S.-Japan Ministerial Meeting on Trade and Economy, the first one in Hakone, with Nishiyama in charge of Japanese to English interpreting, and the second one in Washington DC, with Muramatsu, Kunihiro and Okamoto Yutaka as members of the interpreting team for the Japanese side. One last venue was

37

38


at the annual Gensuikyo19 World Conferences against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, where many aspiring college students, including Komatsu and the author herself, worked as volunteer interpreters, experiencing on-the-job training. The interpreters for productivity missions eventually came back to Japan and started a congress organizing agency, providing interpreter service and training, which helped establish interpreting as a profession in Japan. The general public came to know about simultaneous interpreting in 1969, when all TV stations broadcast the live coverage of the historic Apollo moon landing event, and simultaneous interpreting was provided for communication between the astronauts and NASA, transmitted via satellite.20 It was the first and possibly the only time ordinary people saw simultaneous interpreters at work on TV screen (broadcast interpreters today work in a booth, hidden from the audience), which had a tremendous impact on arousing their interest in simultaneous interpreting, resulting in increased visibility of interpreters in Japan. If the status of interpreters was as low as Kondo (1988) claimed, economically, socially, culturally and even intellectually in the past, simultaneous interpreting at the time of Apollo live broadcasts certainly helped to rectify it, interpreting profession becoming one of the most popular and aspired jobs among young people. The changing status of interpreting and interpreters may not have uprooted the often cited Japanese preference for reticence over verbosity, assumed to be resulting from its high-context culture in Hall’s (1976) dichotomy,21 which Kondo (1988) explains as a possible reason for the lack of respect for interpreting profession, and yet, it is not entirely far-fetched to speculate that the overriding interest in communication with the outside world, heightened by such international events in the late 1960s as the Tokyo Olympics, Apollo moon landing broadcasts and the Osaka World Expo in 1970, all visibly involving interpreters, might have helped in raising more awareness about oral communication, particularly in English, which can be evidenced by reform movements of English language education and the proliferation of interpreting courses, from the 1970s onward (discussed more in detail in Section 2.6).

19. The Japan Council against A & H Bombs was founded in 1955. Their student interpreters became known as “Gensuikyo interpreters.” 20. Nishiyama and Kunihiro worked on NHK public TV network, while Muramatsu, Komatsu and the author were on commercial TV. 21. Edward T. Hall (1976)’s distinction of low-context culture, a preference for text rather than context, and high-context culture, with less emphasis on explicit message.

2.5


A case study of mistranslation in Japanese diplomacy

As the Italian saying goes, “traduttore, traditore” (translator, traitor), translators with all good intentions run the risk of ‘betraying’ the original speech or the text. Interpreting and translation in foreign relations is not immune to this fate and in Japanese diplomatic history, there have been cases of alleged mistranslations. One example is the translation of Japan’s reply to the Potsdam Declaration, described in the previous section. Another one concerning intepreting happened at the time of Prime Minister Suzuki Zenko’s visit to the House of Representatives in Washington DC. The Prime Minister said that Japan wished to be a hari-nezumi, literally meaning a mouse with needles, a porcupine or a hedgehog in English, rather than a lion, which was meant to be a metaphor to describe Japan’s defense posture. Unfortunately, because of background noise, the young diplomat acting as interpreter missed the first two syllables of the word, hari, and heard it as nezumi, a mouse. Being a highly educated man, the interpreter remembered Aesop’s fable and translated the Prime Minister’s speech as ‘We would prefer to be a wise mouse rather than a roaring lion’ (Muramatsu 1981: 1). This translation became an issue when the Washington Post wrote the editorial “Japan and Defense” and commented that ‘Americans do not expect Japan to become a lion that roars, but a lion that squeaks?’ Although this case is an example of unfortunate mistranslation, it is not exactly an issue of intercultural communication, since the cause is entirely attributed to the noise in the room and the physical setting of the interpreter being seated somewhat behind the prime minister, a position from which he could not see the speaker, nor hear him very well. There were indeed other cases where elements of culture and communication came into play in diplomatic negotiations. Perhaps the most widely covered is the case of translating Prime Minister Nakasone’s metaphor as ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier,’ which will be detailed in the narrative of Muramatsu Masumi in Chapter 5. Here, a well known case will be examined to highlight the intricate relationship of language, culture and society – interpreting at a secret summit meeting between President Nixon and Prime Minister Sato.

2.5.1 Sato’s ‘I’ll do my best’ reply to Nixon The 1970 meeting between Prime Minister Sato and U.S. President Nixon is known in Japan as the historic ‘Okinawa for textiles’ summit. It is also known as a classic case of miscommunication between Japan and the United States.

39


The biggest agenda item for Japan at that time was to ask the United States to return Okinawa to Japanese administrative control, and for the U.S. President, the most urgent task was to ask Japan to impose voluntary quota on textile exports to the United States, which had been damaging the American textile industry. The one-on-one meeting was attended only by the two leaders and their interpreters. The interpreter on the Japanese side is speculated to be Akatani Gen-ichi of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since it was supposed to be an informal meeting, no official record remains as to exactly what went on during the meeting. Sato stated in his diary that he had a meeting with President Nixon on October 24 in Washington DC at 4:00 pm lasting for approximately two hours, and that they discussed eight items, such as world affairs especially China and Vietnam, trade issues, including the textile issue, which, both sides agreed should ‘be addressed as quickly as possible.’ Sato’s entry on the day ended with his determination to ‘settle the matter once and for all’ (1997: 192, my translation). Dean C. Barnlund reports that when the two leaders met to discuss a growing textile trade problem between Japan and the United States, Sato announced that ‘since they were on such good terms with each other that the deliberations would be ‘three parts talk and seven parts haragei,’ literally translated as ‘communicate through the belly,’ to feel out intuitively rather than verbally state the precise position of each person’ (1975: 7). Adhering to this Japanese interpersonal strategy, Premier Sato, without explicit verbal elaboration, conveyed his comprehension of the plight of American textile firms threatened by exports of Japanese fabrics to the United States. President Nixon, similarly abiding by norms within his own culture, took Sato’s understanding of the American position to mean that voluntary export quotas would be forthcoming. There are other speculations such as that President Nixon asked his Japanese counterpart to curtail the textile export, to which Prime Minister replied either ‘Maemuki-ni kento shimasho’ which was translated as ‘I will examine the matter in a forward looking manner,’ or that he responded ‘Zensho sihmasu,’ translated as ‘I will do my best’ or ‘I will take care of it.’ The meeting was deemed a success immediately afterwards, but while Nixon kept his promise and returned Okinawa to Japan, Sato could not fulfill his promise on textiles, because: […] the Japanese textile industry which was in a state of decline, refused to cooperate with the government of Prime Minister Eisaku Sato in restricting in exports to the United States. President Nixon believed that he had a promise from Prime Minister Sato that such restrictions would be forthcoming as a quid pro quo for the reversion of Okinawa to Japanese administrative control. President Nixon produced on the Okinawa side of the deal, but Prime Minister Sato was not able to produce on the textile export restrictions. (Weinstein 1991: 98)


Leslie Beebe and R. C. Christopher maintain that ‘all Sato meant to convey was that he would look into the problem and see if there was some way he could alleviate it without too many ugly repercussions’ (Wolfson 1989: 24). However, to Nixon, it sounded as though Sato had promised to remedy the situation. As a result, when Sato failed to take concrete action, ‘Nixon bitterly concluded that he had been double-crossed’ (ibid.). It is often observed that the Japanese have aversion to direct confrontations and tend to avoid a definite ‘no,’ resorting instead to a vague reply to the effect that the matter needs further study’ in order to save face for their interlocutor, but this may not be understood by Americans, and the vagueness may be interpreted for compliance or commitment (Wolfson 1989; see also Johnson 1987). Feeling betrayed, President Nixon took harsh retaliatory measures against Japan, in a series of what is remembered in Japan as ‘Nixon shocks.’ One was in July, 1971, when the United States suddenly announced President Nixon’s visit to China, without notifying Japan, which had been faithfully restraining from normalizing relations with China in deference to American policy. Another shock came the same year in August, when President Nixon announced his New Economic Policy, ‘adding a ten percent surcharge on all existing U.S. tariffs and taking steps to devalue the dollar, measures that were interpreted as being aimed primarily against Japanese imports’ (Flanagan 1991: 47). Sato received the news by telephone on August 16, not from the President himself but from the Secretary of State Rogers, saying the President was on TV making the announcement (Sato 1997: 398). What ensued later was the United States, brandishing the Trading with the Enemy Act, virtually forcing Japan to accept their terms to conclude the textile negotiations in October, 1971 (Flanagan 1991: 47; Weinstein 1991: 98). Weinstein calls this period ‘one of the most tense and dangerous periods in postwar US-Japan relations’ (1991: 98) and concludes that the ‘textile dispute is a good example of how quickly a trade problem can spill over into political relations’ (ibid.: 99). Indeed, this could be a proof that language and translation play a critical role in national and international relations (Berman 2005: 1). For students of language, culture and communication, this is very much a case of intercultural miscommunication. David Katan, for instance, analyzes it from different angles. First, he describes it as deviousness of translation: Deviousness can occur in any translation. Faithful translations can often be as devious as any conscious manipulation of the text. In fact, it was due to a literal translation that President Nixon was convinced that the Japanese were devious in their negotiations. The interpretation of the Japanese prime minister’s words into English, though technically correct, led to an out-of-awareness

41

42


misinterpretation and misevaluation of the meaning. The result was a well-documented diplomatic fiasco. (2004: 191)

Then, Katan studies Sato’s indirect nature of communication as flouting Grice’s maxim22 of both quality and quantity (ibid.: 304–305). When Sato replied he would do his best, knowing it would not be easy for him to persuade the domestic industry, he flouted the maxim of quality, ‘Do not say what you believe to be false’ or ‘Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence’. Or he flouted the maxim of quantity, because he did not make his contribution ‘as informative as required (for the current purposes of the exchange)’. It is also possible to think that Sato flouted the maxim of manner, for not avoiding ‘obscurity of expression’ and ‘ambiguity’ (see Grice 1989: 26–27). However, it is important to realize that Grice’s Cooperative Principles may not operate in the same way across cultures (e.g. Katan 2004: 304). For instance, Hatim and Mason, in discussing cross-cultural communication of counter-argumentation, caution that the style in English is ‘alien to the rhetorical system of a number of languages, something that could be explained in terms of socio-cultural factors such as the attitude to truth. To relay irony in Arabic, for example, it is the maxim of quantity (Do not say more than required…) that is more often flouted and not quality, as is commonly the case in English’ (1997: 140). Accordingly, the translation, whether oral or written, would have to be mediated in such a way as to allow the interlocutors to cooperate, and to be seen and understood to cooperate based on the intention of their talk, which would mean the mediators must be able to place the interlocutors in context, in appropirate interpretative frame (Katan 2004: 306). Research on the Japanese way of communication generally proves (e.g. Barnlund 1975, 1989; Wolfson 1989; Nishida 1989; Torikai 1996, 2004b) that the quantity and quality for conversational maxims expected in a low-context23 culture as the United States cannot be applied to a high-context culture such as Japan, suggesting the risk of causing misunderstanding, since in Japan, ambiguity and vagueness is valued more than straightforward explicitness, and reflecting the

22. Paul Grice (1989) proposed Cooperative Principles for conversation, in which he listed four categories: Maxims of Quantity, Maxims of Quality, Maxims of Relation, and finally, Maxims of Manner. 23. Edward T. Hall (1976) proposed to take contextual differences into account in communication. He noted, for example, Americans in low-context systems find it difficult to understand a closely knit high-context culture such as Japan, where distincitions between insiders and outsiders are greater than in low-context cultures, and its members expect more of others than do the participants in low-context systems (105–116).


high-context nature of the society, the expected information given in a conversation is quite limited, compared with the American way of communication. This is precisely the issue in this particular case of diplomatic miscommunication, for the expressions ‘Zensho shimasu’ (I will deal with the matter in an appropriate way) and ‘Maemuki-ni kento shimasho’ (I will consider the matter in a forward-looking posture) are both considered political rhetoric in Japan. It is taken for granted that when politicians utter these statements, the illocutionary force is a negative commitment, avoiding a definite answer, especially an outright refusal to requests or demands. This poses serious difficulty to the interpreter. When Sato answered using either of the two politicians’ clichés, it could mean an indirect refusal, avoiding a face threatening act.24 On the other hand, Sato might have wished to actually do something, if he could, as he made clear in his diary. What interpreters do in such situations is to infer the speaker’s intent judging from the context, and yet, in Sato’s case, the conversational implicature is beyond the interpreter’s comprehension, unless they had thoroughly discussed Japan’s position beforehand. In retrospect, rather than a categorical ‘I will do my best,’ the safer translation would have been either ‘I will do what I can’ or ‘Let me see what I can do,’ implying that Sato will do his best but that he cannot guarantee the result. What was needed then was, in subscribing to Grice’s Cooperative Principles, to keep the maxim of quantity and give President Nixon more background information, such as the state of the domestic textile industry and the decision-making process in the Japanese government, all of which make it extremely difficult for Sato to curtail the textile export. This, however, is way beyond the interpreter’s task, unless the interpreter as a cultural coordinator has an opportunity to advise the participants in this regard.

2.6

Interpreter training and foreign language education in Japan

Interpreter training in Japan has long been shouldered mainly by language schools and professional conference organizers. Within tertiary education, International Christian University opened Japan’s first interpreter training course in the 1960s and recently, the number of interpreting courses has increased rapidly to nearly

24. For FTA (face threatening act), see Brown & Levinson (1978/1987).

43


several dozen universities and colleges throughout the country. The trend is now spreading to the post-graduate level.25 The backdrop for this tremendous interest in interpreting lies in the social context surrounding Japanese universities. For one thing, due to sharp decline in the birthrate, Japanese universities for the first time are faced with the need to compete to attract prospective students. With the government policy of deregulation and privatization, former national universities are not exempt from this competition. At the same time, there is increasing pressure from the business sector as well as the general public demanding communicative teaching in English language education. Hence, colleges have been forced to innovate their curricula to accommodate these two imperatives, and the easiest answer is to set up interpreting courses, an ideal methodology to foster communicative competence and appealing to young high school students. Only a decade ago, many universities tended to look down upon interpreting training as something not academic enough to be part of college education. It is not surprising nowadays, however, to witness a practising interpreter hired as a tenured faculty member at a prestigious university, national or private. However, the present state of tertiary level interpreting programs is not without its problems. First, the number of qualified instructors is limited. Not all practising interpreters have expertise in teaching English as a foreign language, and most language teachers lack experience in interpreting. The biggest issue lies in the fact that most of the interpreting courses at college level are designed as part of an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) curriculum. As a result, in many cases, interpreting courses turn out to be simply somewhat advanced language teaching classes. The ideal training situation where students enter fully equipped with communicative competence in two languages is an unrealistic prerequisite for many colleges. Also, in such college courses, where classes are offered only a few hours a week at the most, the amount of training is not sufficient. Another problem for students is that college courses, with some exceptions, do not offer on-the-job training or employment. Thus, promising students are obliged to attend language schools at the same time for more intensive training and in the hope of some job assignments, in what they call a ‘double school’ manner, costing them double tuition. Consequently, interpreter training courses at language schools and congress organizers continue to flourish.

25. As of 2008, there are several graduate schools in Tokyo and Kansai which opened interpreting courses, such as pioneering Daito Bunka University, followed by Rikkyo Graduate School of Intercultural Communication, and universities specializing in foreign studies in Osaka, Kobe and Tokyo, among others.


What is missing in all of these courses is theoretical foundation for future interpreters. Language schools and congress organizers are concerned with giving practical training, and universities are interested in giving language practice via interpreter training methods, most notably shadowing, and not in the least interested in offering theoretical aspects of interpreting. Even at the postgraduate level, with some exceptional cases,26 the focus is primarily on practical training. Komatsu (2005), pointing out that the average TOEIC score for college students in Japan is somewhere between 450 and 48027 – below 500 on paper TOEFL and barely capable of basic communication in English – argues that undergraduate interpreting courses should focus on language and communication education, before offering professional training at the postgraduate level with theoretical components combined. Indeed, the classroom reality at universities tends to be frustrating for interpreter-instructors, with students struggling with even the very basic translation and interpreting exercises. On the positive note, however, from a pedagogical point of view, interpreter training does prove effective as a method for communicative language teaching. One example is that the controversial “shadowing” exercises, basic simultaneous interpreter training to repeat what you hear, which some criticize as mere parroting, thus misleading future interpreters, turn out to be quite effective in improving listening comprehension for Japanese learners of English (e.g. Tamai 2005). Another benefit is that the interpreting class is an ideal place for learners to actively use a foreign language. In traditional language teaching, receptive ability in reading used to be emphasized because learning from overseas was the ultimate aim of language study. However, as Kokugo Shingikai noted in 2000, there is an increasing imperative today to export information from Japan, and to actively engage in communication with others overseas, overcoming language barriers. This statement was made in reference to the significance of interpreting and translation, but it certainly can be applied to language education. By introducing interpreting activities from Japanese to English, for instance, students are obliged to speak in English, and what they utter is more likely a discourse

26. Osaka University and Rikkyo Graduate School of Intercultural Communication are more of an exception in offering courses in interpreting and translation theories. 27. TOEIC(Test of English for International Communication) score guidelines: Level A(above 860)=fully capable of communication as a non-native speaker Level B(730-860)=Basically able to communicate in any situation Level C(470-730)=Able to communicate in daily life, including work in restricted areas Level D(220-470)=Minimum level of communication possible in daily conversation Level E=(Below 220)=Not able to communicate (International Business Communication Association, in Toriaki 2002, my translation)

45


of some length with content, rather than simple formulaic expressions or chunks. In trying to perform interpreting, college students learn a foreign language as something more than a tool, with all its complexity and joy, prompting them to learn more. In their preparation for interpreting, they are bound to increase their vocabulary, checking dictionaries, browsing the Internet, reading newspapers and books, and watching news programs, all in English. They learn to read both intensively and extensively, and they are trained in public speaking with consecutive interpreting in front of the class. Above all else, they come to experience issues involved in intercultural communication, giving thought to language and culture from new perspectives. What all this means is that interpreting courses contribute to improving proficiency level of Japanese learners of English, and at the same time, become the starting point for the future interpreting field in Japan – motivating students to be engaged in interpreting, thereby increasing the number of potential interpreters as well as future researchers, and in addition, future clients with deep understanding and empathy toward the profession.

2.7

Interpreting studies in Japan

The study of interpreting is a rapidly emerging field in Japan. It was in 1990 that a small number of practising interpreters and interpreter-academics formed an informal interpreting research study group, which in September, 2000, became the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies (JAIS), the first academic society of its kind in Japan. And with increasing number of translators and translation researchers joining the association, eight years later in September, 2008, at its annual conference, JAIS officially decided to change its name to the Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies (JAITS), incorporating both Interpreting and Translation Studies. While literary translation in Japan has always been considered part of literature, the theory of translation has not been fully appreciated or addressed. To be sure, there were writer-translators (e.g. Mori Ohgai), scholar-translators (e.g. Nogami Toyoichiro), or journalist-translators (e.g. Morita Shiken), who expressed their thinking on translation in Meiji period, and in contemporary Japan, translators and scholars such as Yanabu Akira, Haga Tohru, Shibata Motoyuki and others, discuss translation in relation with literature, Japanese history and culture. However, most of these remain individual views and have not fully developed into substantial theoretical discussion. Moreover, technical translation and localization have been outside academic consideration, and tend to be treated in more or less the same way as oral interpreting, which is usually treated as something


practical, skills to be trained, rather than an academic field to be researched and studied. As mentioned above, the proliferation of interpreting courses in tertiary education in Japan has for the most part been due to its practical benefit in terms of communicative language teaching. It is only recently that the theoretical study of interpreting has emerged in some universities and graduate schools. On the national level, the 22nd Kokugo Shingikai28 issued a proposal in 2000, breaking new ground in mentioning the importance of interpreting for the first time in its history. It stated that the presence of expert interpreters who are fully versed in the cultural and social background of the language is of paramount importance in points of contact between different languages and cultures. The proposal specifically mentioned the need for training and education of interpreters: Interpreting is a special profession which requires high-level ability in both native and foreign languages, as well as wide-ranging knowledge including cultural background of the language. In our country, interpreter education is carried out at universities, along with language schools and private enterprises. It is hoped that from now on interpreter education will be further developed at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, to foster highly trained professional interpreters and researchers of interpreting theory, so that Japan will be blessed with human re sources to face the age of globalization. (Kokugo Shingikai 2000: 6, my translation)

It is axiomatic that a small number of genius-like interpreters will not suffice in the globalized and multicultural world of the 21st century. Interpreting will take on even more importance in a society where different cultures coexist. Even with technological advances in machine translation, ‘only human interpreters are able to translate subtle meanings, based on cultural and social contexts, taking into account human relations and the situational constraints’ (Kokugo Shingikai 2000).

2.8

Conclusion

In this chapter, a brief overview was presented to illuminate the place of interpreting and translation in the history of Japan to better understand the pioneer interpreters in the present study. The chapter started with Nagasaki tsũji and went on to the significant role translation played in the modernization of Meiji Japan. At the same time, recent trends in the interpreting field in Japan were shown, from the introduction of simultaneous interpreting after World War II to emerging Interpreting Studies. 28. The National Language Council of Japan.

47


In the following chapters, attention will be directed specifically toward agents in the interpreting activities, particularly interpreters, invisible but indispensable. We will begin by trying to understand them as human beings, exploring their ‘habitus’ by examining the narratives of the pioneer diplomatic interpreters.

chapter 3

Habitus

In this chapter, life stories of the five pioneer interpreters in their earlier years will be introduced. Their narratives are examined in such a way as to incorporate their experiences, emotions and feelings at times not directly associated with language per se, such as their wartime experiences, in order to seek what Pierre Bourdieu terms ‘habitus.’ As systems of durable dispositions and as ‘past history internalized as a second nature,’ the habitus makes the individual agent a ‘world within the world’ (Bourdieu 1990: 56). It is therefore significant and legitimate to try to obtain a glimpse into the individual habitus of the five interpreters, which generate their thoughts, perceptions, decisions and actions. To this end, this chapter places particular focus on how they became interested in languages in the first place, going back to their upbringing, as well as how they actually learned two languages. One popular notion about simultaneous interpreters is first and foremost that they are bilinguals. This expectation is justified when you consider that in interpreting, particularly in simultaneous mode, you have to change the code instantaneously with the time lag of seconds, rather than minutes. And yet, the question of how a bilingual would emerge as a translator and an interpreter, especially outside of the schooling system (Toury 1995: 241), is a complex issue in itself (see also 4.5). Toury (1995) argues that notwithstanding a predisposition for translating, ‘the identification of translating as a skill with mere bilingualism seems an unwarranted oversimplification’ (245, emphasis in original). AIIC dictates language combination according to the A-B-C system.29 Among the two active languages, A is ‘the interpreter’s native language (or another language strictly equivalent to a native language), into which the interpreter works from all her or his other languages in both modes of interpreting, simultaneous and consecutive, whereas B is a language other than the interpreter’s native language, of which ‘she or he has a perfect command and into which she or he works from one or more of her or his other languages,’ and C is a passive language, of which ‘the interpreter has a complete understanding and from which she or he works.’

29. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/article118.htm.

50


Although AIIC does not make reference to the process of how their members achieve proficiency in their classification of three working languages for professional interpreters, generally people assume that simultaneous interpreters are all bilinguals who were brought up in a bilingual environment. Among the five interpreters under study, only Nishiyama would fall into such a category. While Nishiyama states, ‘when I interpret, it comes out without thinking in one particular language. It comes out naturally in Japanese for Japanese listeners and in English for English-speaking people,’ Komatsu admits that he feels more comfortable when he interprets English into Japanese than the other way around, since English is his second language and by the time he went to the U.S. he was already 20. Muramatsu and Kunihiro likewise grew up in Japan, spending their adolescence during WWII, hardly an ideal time and place for language study. Sohma is a unique case in that she was brought up in a bilingual family in monolingual Japan. In sum, the five interpreters have varied backgrounds which makes it difficult to simply presume that they ‘acquired’30 naturally the needed linguistic competence to enable them to become simultaneous interpreters. The five pioneer interpreters will be categorized in two groups based on the difference in their language learning experiences. The first group is Muramatsu, Kunihiro and Komatsu, who learned English as a foreign language (EFL) in formal education. The second group is Nishiyama and Sohma, who were exposed to English as they grew up and more or less acquired it as a second language. The chapter begins with the life stories of the first group, ‘3.1 Learning English as a foreign language,’ followed by the second group, ‘3.2 Growing up in a bilingual environment.’ Then in ‘3.3 Experiencing World War II,’ the shared experiences of WWII will be introduced through their narratives, with the final discussion at the end, in ‘3.4 Discussion.’

3.1

Learning English as a foreign language

Muramatsu Masumi, Kunihiro Masao and Komatsu Tatsuya were all born in prewar Japan – Muramatsu and Kunihiro in 1930 in Tokyo, Komatsu in 1934 in Nagoya – and learned English as a foreign language, before, during, and after WWII, their experiences representing many Japanese of the same generation.

30. Here, ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’ are distinguished based on Stephen Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning distinction, where ‘acquisition’ is defined as ‘a subconscious process’ similar to ‘the way children develop ability in their first language,’ as opposed to more formal and explicit ‘learning,’ with ‘conscious knowledge of a second language’ (Krashen 1987: 10).

Chapter 3. Habitus

Kunihiro repeated several times in his talk that he was in the ‘third year of junior high school’ when Japan was ‘defeated in the war in the 20th year of Showa (1945),’ and reminisces how he studied English, when it was still considered to be ‘the language of the enemy.’ He explains at length how the environment was not a favorable one for learning English, and goes back to the days during the war: Anyway, […] it was the time when people said ‘kichiku-beiei’.31 Countries such as England and the U.S. were considered ‘kicihku,’ demons and brutes, you see, the time of ‘kichiku-beiei.’ In my days, it was actually ‘kichiku-eibei,’ Britain (ei) coming first and then the U.S. (bei). Then gradually, the U.S. gained power, and the phrase became ‘kichiku-beiei,’ America first, and then Britain. So it was the time of ‘kichiku-eibei’ or ‘kichiku-beiei,’ and the English language was referred to as ‘tekiseigo’ (hostile language). The Chinese characters used for ‘teki-sei’ were ‘enemy’(teki) and ‘nature’ (sei). English was called ‘tekiseigo.’ So, I can say, the time didn’t exactly provide a favorable environment for studying English.

In addition, Kunihiro continued, more serious were severe food shortages and air raids, which burned down his house when he was in his second year of junior high school. According to Kunihiro, the average person received ‘only 1200 calorie ration of food per day’ which would be ‘what a seriously ill person is allowed to take in one day.’ What was worse was, in Kunihiro’s memory, food rations were ‘not proper food, but leaves or stems of poor quality potatoes or yams which today would be used as livestock feed.’ It certainly was not enough for a young, growing boy, and a hungry boy ‘didn’t at all feel like studying English.’

3.1.1 Motivation for language learning For Muramatsu, the first time he realized the ‘power of speech’ was when as a small boy he fought against a neighborhood bully: I was full of curiosity, and also extremely verbal and had the gift of the gab. I never used dirty words, but because I grew up in shitamachi,32 and also due to my parents’ influence, I was good at overpowering others verbally. […] I recognized the power of speech for the very first time when I was about to start elementary school. There was a neighborhood bully, or a ‘bully boy.’ He was a very tall, handsome, beautiful boy with fair skin, even to the eye of a child. He

31. Literally meaning ‘devilish and bestial Americans and British.’ 32. Shitamachi is an old part of downtown Tokyo, where people are more straightforward, not as reserved as uptown people.

51

52


was actually the heir to an honorable family that, for generations, had been carrying on the Okagura33 tradition in Torigoe area, or Asakusa. He was even in the newspaper […]. He was a bully. We were terrified of him. But one day, while several children were being bullied, I bawled him out like crazy…because I was not physically strong. ‘You, son-of-a-bitch! Come back here after you wash your face with miso soup! Get lost!’ And so on and so forth, non-stop. Then what happened was, he burst into tears and ran home […]. That incident suddenly made me a hero in my neighborhood. That’s when I realized what counts is verbal strength, and not physical strength.

Muramatsu was born and raised in Kuramae, an old part of Tokyo, where there was a popular entertainment area nearby. He explains that his father, who used to be what they called a ‘modern boy,’ enjoyed operetta and movies: We lived in Kuramae, and my father used to take me to see movies in Asakusa quite often. He would always be humming what they used to call ‘Asakusa Opera’ back then, which was really an operetta. For example, he would hum songs like, “In the wind, like a feather,” or old songs like, “Women always change their minds.” I used to memorize the lyrics right away and mimic the singing. When I was in elementary school, he used to take me to Asakusa Rokku34 from Kuramae to see Western movies, foreign movies. It took about 30 minutes on foot as a child. I remember many of the last silent movies. I also remember the narrator’s performance very well. I think it was Tokugawa Musei. You see, I grew up very close to these things. Even during the war, I always listened to Tokugawa Musei telling the story of ‘Miyamaoto Musashi’ on the radio. I listened at home during the air raids, right until it was time for us to move into an air-raid shelter after the air alert. Also rakugo.35 There used to be something called heitai rakugo back then. And I think it was Yanagiya Kosan that I used to listen to a lot.

Kunihiro likewise was influenced by his farther, but not quite in the same way as Muramatsu. Kunihiro attributes his ‘strong interest in languages’ to two factors, the first one being his father and his teaching of reading Chinese classics aloud – sodoku, literally meaning ‘simple reading’:

33. Okagura is Shinto music and dance. 34. Asakusa Rokku (District 6 of the 7 zones in Asakusa area) was a popular entertainment area, somewhat like Broadway, from Meiji to early Showa, with many theaters for opera and movies. 35. Rakugo is Japanese traditional art of comic monologue or storytelling.

Chapter 3. Habitus

For one thing, even as a small child, I enjoyed reading… I read widely, including Japanese classics, for example the work of Matsuo Basho, and because of my father’s thinking, I was taught to read Chinese classics. And my father made me do what’s called ‘sodoku’ – oral reading, or reading aloud. My father was what you could call a ‘Sinophile.’ He was in a way an aficionado of Chinese civilization. He insisted, ‘Do not assume you understand Japan without understanding China. Do not assume you understand the Japanese language unless you understand Chinese.’ That was his basic way of thinking. By Chinese I mean… he was able to speak modern Chinese, but he did not teach me contemporary Chinese. Personally, I regret this very much… looking back on it. However, when it comes to Chinese classics, you could say I was thoroughly disciplined to read Chinese literature. From an early age on. In elementary school…no, it was before entering elementary school… Literature such as Shisho Gokyo and Tohshisen… And Chinese poetry [in Tang Dynasty]. My father, he would just read it and do sodoku without any explanation. I would not say anything, whether I understood the meaning or not, and just read out loud. I read, but actually, I repeated after my father. That was one of my initiations into language.

The second factor which acted as an initiation into language for Kunihiro was his moving to Kobe and being exposed to Kansai dialect, very different from the Tokyo dialect he was brought up with. I was not familiar with Kansai dialect as people are now. We didn’t have television back then. So, those of us living in the Kanto region never had a chance to hear ‘manzai-shi’36 or ‘rakugo-ka’37 with Kansai-ben or Osaka-ben.38 Therefore, Kansai dialect existed almost as if it were a distinct, independent foreign language, you see. I had been raised with Tokyo-ben, born in Tokyo, brought up with Tokyo accent, read an extensive number of books in Tokyo-ben, and then, in the second year of junior high school, for the first time, I go and live in Kansai. […] And, really, it was a foreign language! Definitely, a foreign language […]. I really needed an interpreter! Without somebody interpreting for me, it was impossible… In other words, we couldn’t communicate, even though we were both speaking Japanese.

Ultimately, in Kunihiro’s view, for these two factors, he ‘didn’t have any other choice but to become interested in languages.’

36. Manzai-shi is a stand-up comedian. 37. Rakugo-ka is a story-teller. 38. Kansai-ben, Osaka-ben and Tokyo-ben are dialects in Kansai, Osaka and Tokyo, respectively.

53

54


Kunihiro’s account of English as ‘the language of the enemy’ is in sharp contrast with Komatsu’s experience, who as the youngest of the three, entered junior high school in Tokyo after the war. Komatsu, like many other Japanese in postwar period, ‘liked English very much.’ Incredibly, scarcely a month after the surrender, in September 1945, an English conversation textbook Nichibei Kaiwa-chõ was published and sold 3.6 million copies in two and a half months. Also, a nationwide radio program started to teach English, attracting the audience with an opening song, calling out, ‘Come, Come, Everybody!’ (Torikai 2005b: 249). Komatsu spent his days as a teenager against the backdrop of this craze over the study of English and an immense interest in a country that had defeated Japan. Komatsu admits: I was very fond of the United States, and this feeling may have resulted in my fondness for the English language as well. For example, when I was a student at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, I liked Shakespeare very much. Or English literature, and American literature. I did a lot of study in that field.

Komatsu went to a private high school in Tokyo, where the teaching was based on grammar-translation method and he ‘didn’t receive any special English language education,’ and yet, the junior high school student ‘liked English as a school subject.’ In a way, it is intriguing how he became interested in a foreign language. Unlike Kunihiro, he didn’t meet any native speakers of English until he entered college, and unlike Muramatsu, Komatsu was not a born linguist: I liked English as a subject at school. But when I spoke Japanese, I wasn’t a good talker and I was extremely reticent. […] I’m not like Muramatsu-san. He is eloquent in Japanese, too, and he enjoys talking. Compared with him…well, it’s kind of strange to say this myself, but I am extremely shy. And I was never a good speaker. And I didn’t particularly like speaking or talking.

The only thing that kept ‘shy and reticent’ Komatsu interested in English study and motivated him to major in English at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, it seems, was his fascination with the United States. This is close to what Gardner (1985) calls ‘integrative motive,’ a ‘motivation to learn a second language because of positive feelings toward the community that speaks that language’ (82–83).

Chapter 3. Habitus

3.1.2 Teachers of English Kunihiro started to study English in junior high school in Tokyo, before moving to Kobe. He recalls reading a biography of Nitobe Inazo,39 Undersecretary of the League of Nations and author of Bushido, as a junior high school student. What Nitobe, one of the most eloquent speakers and writers of English in Japan, said about his motivation ‘to study English to become a bridge over the Pacific Ocean’ impressed him immensely, making him realize that ‘nothing starts unless you know the language’ (Igarashi, The Mainichi Shimbun, Friday, March 31, 2006: 4), which motivated him to study English, an enemy language. Kunihiro speaks highly of his teacher in junior high school, who taught him to read English out loud: I was blessed with a wonderful teacher, who taught English. He said… ‘You have to read English out loud.’ This is what he emphasized and reiterated. ...I don’t think he had ever studied abroad, and yet this teacher said, ‘It’s important to read English over and over, out loud.’ Since I had knowledge of the Chinese classics, because my father made me do sodoku with Chinese classics, it wasn’t much of a jump for me to move from Chinese classics to English. It was natural for me. So, I read out loud a lot. I devoted myself to reading English aloud.

This experience eventually led Kunihiro to design his own ‘ondoku (read-aloud) method,’ attracting many learners of English in Japan. Muramatsu likewise spoke highly of his teachers and their grammar-based traditional teaching, especially Mr. Imaishi who taught English using Macbeth, and who later became president of Hiroshima Jogakuin University. Torikai: The English education that these teachers gave, including Imaishi-sensei, was quite orthodox, or… Muramatsu: It was an orthodox method. Torikai: Grammar, and reading… Muramatsu: Yes, grammar, but I think the teaching material was also very good. Torikai: How? Muramatsu: Imaishi-sensei’s class was the best. For example, we did Tales from Shakespeare by Charles and Mary Lamb, believe it or not, in the fall of our third year in junior high school. It was right after the end of the war, and the teacher 39. Nitobe Inazo (1862–1933), professor at Sapporo Agricultural School, Kyoto Imperial University Law School, University of Tokyo Law School, and the first president of Tokyo Women’s College. At the age of 37, he published Bushido in English, which even today, is considered to be one of the best English prose works written by a Japanese. As Undersecretary of the League of Nations, Nitobe gave numerous speeches in Europe on behalf of the Secretary General.

55

56


selected this book for us and we read Macbeth. That was when I learned the story of Macbeth. It started with, ‘Macbeth, the lord of Glamis,’ and I learned how to pronounce ‘Glamis.’ And the king named Duncan, who was killed, was an extremely meek person, ‘the meek king.’ There, I learned the word ‘meek,’ m-e-e-k. Nobody learns this kind of stuff in junior high school any more. I truly believe that it’s better to provide students with textbooks that are slightly difficult. So, we studied it very hard. As you know, Lambs’ Tales from Shakespeare was re-written in easy-to-understand language from the original Shakespeare of more than 100 years ago in order to make it easier for the British youth to understand. But its words still retain the original flavor. So when you read it, the rhythm and some of the phrases that appear are quite close to the original. When I went to Waseda University and studied the real Macbeth, it was true déjà vu. ‘Oh, I know this one.’ I was quite delighted. I was able to read Macbeth smoothly, as if I were cruising. Nowadays Charles and Mary Lamb are all but forgotten, but I think it’s something that’s definitely worth reading.

3.1.3 Studying a ‘hostile language’ during the war Although officially the teaching of English was prohibited in wartime Japan as a ‘hostile language,’ Muramatsu and Kunihiro reveal that they studied English during the war as junior high school40 students. Muramtsu recalls he studied English officially in junior high school in Tokyo, until air raids started: Torikai: So, even though people said English was the language of the enemy, you actually studied it. Muramatsu: Yes, that’s right. Right until the air raids began. There were no more classes after we were mobilized to work in factories, but right until then. I believe we labored in factories for about a year, until the end of the war. It may have been less than a year. However, up until then, it was officially taught. I remember the things we studied back then quite clearly.

Kunihiro recalls what he learned was a very formal kind of English, which he facetiously calls ‘kamishimo’41 English – ’I’m afraid it was awfully formal …almost as if English were wearing kamishimo. It was really kamishimo English.’ Kunihiro then elaborated on the English textbooks he used during and after the war: 40. Under the old education system in Japan, before the postwar educational reform, there were 6 years of elementary school, followed by 5 years of junior high school. First grade in senior high school under the old system was equivalent to the first year in university today. 41. Kamishimo is formal attire for samurai.

Chapter 3. Habitus

Kunihiro: During the war, there was one published by Sanseido called King’s Crown, which was a quality textbook, a very good one. Torikai: In the middle of the war? Kunihiro: Sure, right in the middle of the war. Kanda Naibu-sensei wrote King’s Crown Reader, which had five volumes, from one to five, from the first grade to the fifth. In those days, there were five years of junior high school, so there were five volumes. I was in the first and second grade, so I studied volumes one and two. Being a textbook written by Kanda-sensei, the content was outstanding, and I remember the binding and the design of the book was good as well. The only problem was, how should I put it, the topics were extremely sophisticated, probably because the baron lived in the U.S. for a long time. The situations were all taken from the U.S. or England. I learned what kind of city London was, for the first time, in Kanda’s King’s Reader Volume 2. There was a detailed description of London. I thought, ‘Oh, London! I really want to visit this city.’ And this was in the middle of the war.

When Kuniihro advanced to the third grade, however, textbook screening and authorization by the Ministry of Education started. In Kunihiro’s opinion, the topics chosen reflected wartime propaganda, for example, ‘A Japanese Navy torpedo bomber attacked two English battleships, Prince of Wales and Repulse, off the coast of Malaya. One was blown up and sank immediately, and the other was totally destroyed.’ Also, Kunihiro doubts if there were any native speakers who checked the English and its usage, because he remembers finding sentences that sounded ‘Japanese-English’ which made him wonder, ‘Do they really say this in English?’

An encounter with a prisoner of war Interestingly, for both Muramtsu and Kunihiro, their first contact with speakers of English was talking to prisoners of war during the war, when in Kunihiro’s words, there was ‘no one from English speaking countries,’ ‘no TV, no radio programs in English,’ and ‘English was a language of the enemy.’ Muramatsu recounts meeting a POW from the Netherlands at an aircraft factory he was mobilized to work, and remembers that, as a junior high school student, he was very excited to communicate with him in English (1978: 4–5). Kunihiro’s first contact with a native speaker came in his second year of junior high school. He wanted desperately to use English he learned with native speakers of English from a foreign country, and so he decided to visit a POW camp. He knew there was a prison camp near Nada Station in Kobe, where ‘they were setting up an anti-aircraft gun emplacement, with shirtless prisoners carrying baskets of dirt on their shoulders.’ This of course was a risky adventure which required courage because, ‘if you approached prison camps back then, you were

57

58


risking being charged with espionage.’ However, Kunihiro decided not to worry about the consequences and just went ahead with his ‘audacious and reckless’ plan and went to the prison in August: There, inside the fence... I was outside the enclosure and they were inside. The prisoners behind the fence all looked like ogres and demons to me. They looked so big. And some of them had tattoos. So these guys are …foreigners, ‘ketou,’ I thought. The word ketou was used those days… It’s written with a character ke, which means hair, and tou, which comes from toujin (Chinese people)…It meant foreigners. White foreigners…All of these guys looked intimidating and scary…

While Kunihiro thought most of the prisoners were ‘okkanai’ (frightening), there was one young soldier who was short and looked ‘gentle and mild’: Even now, his face still comes back to my mind from time to time…He was young, say, twenty-something, I’m not sure, but there was this very young soldier, probably around 22 or 23. So this young one, who was short in stature, looked at me and smiled… from behind the fence. I presume that when he saw me, he remembered his younger brother or someone back home.

And at that moment, Kunihiro thought, ‘He’s the one! I’m going to talk to him.’ The question, then, was what to say in English. He thought of asking him what country he was from, because there were POWs from different countries such as the USA, the UK, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand and India. Unfortunately, however, the textbooks those days did not teach the expression ‘Where are you from?’ and Kunihiro ended up asking him, ‘What is your country?’ The young prisoner smiled again and answered in one word, ‘Scotland.’ If he had said something complicated or gone into details, Kunihiro recalls, he would not have understood him. The young boy understood because the POW just said one word, ‘Scotland’: ‘Oh, Scotland!’ I thought, because I already knew the name of the place, Scotland. At that moment... how should I explain this...I was, should I say, ecstatic or something like ‘dancing for joy.’ I felt as though I was on cloud nine or in heaven and shouted, ‘Tsûji-ta! (We communicated!) Tsûji-ta! Tsûji-ta! Tsûji-ta! ’ all the way to the mountain. My house used to be located at the foot of a mountain in Kobe, so I ran all the way screaming, ‘Tsûji-ta! Tsûji-ta! Tsûji-ta! Tsûji-ta!’

Kunihiro believes that if it weren’t for this experience, he would not have been so ‘bewitched’ or ‘intrigued’ by English, and that it definitely determined his destiny. It is indeed intriguing to think that his career in a way started with his meeting a young POW from Scotland, and that after more than half a century, Kunihiro was appointed a distinguished visiting professor at the University of Edinburgh, offering him a chance to visit Scotland.

Chapter 3. Habitus

3.1.4 Studying English after the war For Muramatsu, the end of the war meant the end of his dream to make aircraft. The first thing they did at the Aviation Engineering School after the surrender was to destroy the aircraft themselves: The war ended and we destroyed the airplanes with our own hands, with tears. […] We thought the U.S. Army would come and destroy them anyway. If that’s the case, we would rather do it ourselves, so before the arrival of the U.S. Army, we went to a hangar in the corner of the schoolyard. An aircraft hangar, that is. There were many twin-engine planes there, though they would seem small today. And although we were all boys, we were crying and we smashed these airplanes apart with farming hoes and rakes. Back then, most of the planes were made of wood rather than metal.

Although some years later Muramatsu started to feel as if ‘the United States symbolized the world,’ he was not too amused to see American soldiers come to his school. In September 1945, a month after Japan’s surrender, several American soldiers appeared and tried to take away basketball poles from the school yard. Muramatsu and his classmates were so angry that they shouted at the Americans using English which they had just learned: ‘You shall die!’ is different from ‘You will die,’ because the former denotes a deliberate intent to kill. I remembered this, and so I yelled it out to the American soldiers, when they came to school immediately after the war. The pronunciation was awful, undoubtedly, and they didn’t get it.

Apparently, the soldiers didn’t understand what Muramatsu and other students were shouting and they kept trying to take the poles. Then, their teacher, Mr. Imaishi, walked over to them, told them something in English, and to the amazement of students, the American soldiers gave up the basketball poles and quietly left. Muramatsu recalls how impressed he was with this teacher.

Soldiers of the Occupation Forces Unlike Muramatsu who shouted, ‘You shall die!’ to American soldiers, Kunihiro tried to seek help from soldiers to teach him English as soon as the war ended. Kobe was under the jurisdiction of British Commonwealth Forces, its headquarters located in Hiroshima, and the Occupation Forces in Kobe included soldiers from the UK, Australia, New Zealand and India, not to mention the U.S. Kunihiro narrated vividly how he used to ask these soldiers to teach him English. What he did was to somehow obtain two copies of the same textbook, which

59


in those days, despite their poor quality, were hard to come by. Young Kunihiro then took these two copies of an English textbook, and went to downtown Kobe, such as San-nomiya and Motomachi. In the beginning, Kunihiro recalls, the Occupation Forces were cautious with the Japanese people and were not too friendly. However, gradually they began to relax, realizing that people in Japan were not much of a threat: […] there were many soldiers leaving their rifles on the wall and just roaming around the area, two or three of them in a group just hanging around. And I thought, ‘This is perfect!’ It was the same as when I spoke to the prisoner. Except this time, I wasn’t going to speak to a prisoner – I was one of the captives, like all the other Japanese!

Kunihiro approached some of these soldiers with his valuable textbooks, kept one for himself and showed the other copy to the soldiers and asked: ‘Would you mind reading this to me?’ There were no tape recorders back then. They didn’t exist yet. No television either. So, I had them read it to me. And they simply read it out loud. While listening to them, I would take notes, ‘Oh, here, the intonation went up, here downward. He paused here.’ I would jot down intonation marks and pauses in my own textbook.

After a while, another soldier would come by and ask, ‘Hey, what are you doing?’ And the soldier would reply, ‘This kid is studying English and asked me to read his textbook. He made me read a textbook for the third year of junior high school or something. I read a whole lot, so why don’t you take over.’ And thus, they took turns and continued to read the textbook aloud for him. Kunihiro continued this ritual almost every day in downtown Kobe after school, and soon he noticed that soldiers had different ways of pronouncing English depending on where they were from: […] I had a tremendous amount of interest in the United States and was quite knowledgeable about U.S. geography and history. So I would ask them, ‘Where are you from?’ and they would answer, ‘I’m from New York,’ or ‘I’m from such and such.’ And it sounded different when a guy from Tennessee read after a New Yorker. I wondered why there was such a difference when they were both Americans. I was quite sensitive to differences in dialects and regional varieties, because I knew both Tokyo and Kobe dialects. I repeatedly noticed such things as ‘Oh, there’s a difference in this way,’ or ‘Ah, the Tennessee guy said it this way.’

Eventually, Kunihiro started to do the reading himself, asking soldiers to listen to him and correct his English:

Chapter 3. Habitus

I tried to imitate them as much as possible. And they acted as if they had some sort of authority and said things like, ‘This part is wrong,’ or ‘You shouldn’t pause in the middle of a sentence like that,’ or ‘Your tone should come down like this.’ They were ordinary soldiers. Around 20 years old or so.

Kunihiro explains that this experience, too, helped to fortify his belief and the habit of learning a foreign language by reading passages out loud. Kunihiro then started to participate in various events that are related to English and English study such as English recitation contests started around that time by The Mainichi Newspapers. He was also involved in establishing the ESS (English Speaking Society), student-run clubs to study English, which still exist in most universities in Japan. All of these provided Kunihiro with ‘a type of very important fieldwork, an actual fieldwork of English’ to lay the foundation for his future activities. By winter, several months after the surrender, Muramatsu was busy reading books: And my dream of airplanes just wilted in the end. And I was starving for printed words at the time. […] in the winter of the year the war ended, when it had already become cold, I clearly remember that there was a Tokugawa mansion in front of Sendagaya Station, where there is a gymnasium now, and it served as a metropolitan library of Tokyo. It may have been a temporary library because the original library had been burned down. Inside this small mansion was a library, and I would go there all the time and read books in the warm hallway, because it was cold outside, you see. And what I read at the time was, guess what, poetry.

He read Japanese poetry, such as Hinatsu Konosuke and the like, and he also read Akutagawa Ryunosuke. He not only read the books but copied them in his notebook, which he feels is ‘similar to what Kunihiro-san calls “devoted recitation” and a very good learning method,’ enabling him to acquire a sense of rhythm for poetry as well as learning kanji characters and various expressions. It was just about this time that once again foreign literature began to be translated, and the translation of Lady Chatterley’s Lover came out, in Muramatsu’s recollection, about a year after the war ended: Torikai: It became available so soon? Muramatsu: Yes, it came out right away. But some parts were blacked out. That’s how it was back then. All the essential parts were blacked out. Being full of curiosity, I went to a second-hand bookstore in Kanda and, guess what, found a paperback version, most probably sold or thrown away by an American soldier after he read it, and I translated all of the blacked out portions in detail – imagine a young boy doing that! A 15 or 16 year-old boy translated the blacked out parts

61

62


of Lady Chatterley. […] I wrote it down on a mimeograph and distributed the translation to everybody. All the curious boys got together and said, ‘Wow!’ We were all so excited. It wasn’t so much that I was precocious, but my intellectual curiosity was getting the better of me. It was so much fun.

At school, he not only read Shakespeare in Lambs’ edition, but another textbook used was Koizumi Yakumo – Lafcadio Hearn and his Kwaidan. Muramatsu reminisces how he enjoyed the story called “Mujina Zaka” (badger hill): There was an illustration of a face like this, you see. I found it so funny. We would read it aloud all together, and then the teacher would ask, ‘Does anybody want to read it?’ ‘Yes,’ I would say. And as I read, the word ‘ojochu, ojochu’ comes up. I found it so amusing and entertaining to see a Japanese word ojochu (maidservant) appear in an English passage and I was dying to read that part. Then I thought, ‘But these are stories from Japan.’ I would come across stories such as “Miminashi Hoichi” (Hoichi without ears), and because it’s originally a Japanese folktale, I vaguely knew the story, so I could understand it right away when I read it in English. I thought to myself, ‘Oh, I can read so much about Japan in English. What fun!’

Muramatsu looks back on reading Kwaidan, which made him think, ‘Ah-ha, since it’s so interesting to read about Japan in English, it must be even more exciting if I could read foreign novels in English,’ and this motivated him to study English even harder. Once in college, Komatsu became even more interested in the U.S., including literature, jazz, movies, musicals, American management and industry, as well as politics, and when he graduated from university, he wrote a thesis on American politics: “Theodore Roosevelt and the Emergence of American Imperialistic Diplomacy,” was an outrageous or shall I say, exaggerated title, but the content was nothing so dramatic. When I was a college student, I was a leftist, you see. I was involved in things like the Gensuikyo.42 I was a leftist, but I liked America very much. From my leftist perspective, the U.S. seemed imperialistic. However, in reality… I was extremely fond of the U.S. I wondered why the U.S., the country I liked very much, was imperialistic. Imperialism was evil… I had a notion that it was evil. For this reason, I wanted to study a little about why the U.S. became imperialistic. It was right about the time Theodore Roosevelt’s diplomatic policy first began to surface, and it was clearly imperialist diplomacy. So, I read a few books and managed to write something that looked like a thesis. Nothing spectacular, really.

42. See Section 3.3.

Chapter 3. Habitus

Komatsu admits that the only reason he applied to become an interpreter for the Japan Productivity Center-U.S. State Department program was to go to the U.S.: I think I applied in my senior year. All I wanted was to go to the United States. It wasn’t all that easy to go to the U.S. in those days. And…my thesis happened to be on American studies, and I also liked jazz very much. I had a great admiration for the U.S. The reason I took the test was because if I passed it, I could go to the U.S., and I really wanted to go.

Thus, although at the time, his primary motive was ‘to go to the U.S., rather than to become an interpreter,’ this decision would eventually change his entire career.

Going abroad For ordinary Japanese in the 1940s and 1950s, going abroad was something exceptional, and as such, for Muramatsu and Komatsu, the first time they left Japan was when they were selected as interpreter trainees at the U.S. State Department. Among the three who learned English as a foreign language, only Kunihiro went abroad while in college. Kunihiro was a sophomore at Aoyama Gakuin University in Tokyo, when he participated in the first Japan-America Student Conference43 after the war, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, not yet a state. He was one of 5 or 6 students chosen out of 2,000 applicants. Kunihiro recounts a presentation he gave at the conference, which virtually paved the way for him to study cultural anthropology at the University of Hawaii later. In the presentation, he talked about his future dream of having people understand Japan through English translations of Japanese literary works. He specifically talked about a British woman named Constance Garnett, who devoted herself to translating Russian literature of the Czarist era, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, into English: Thanks to her work, Russian literature was translated into English and disseminated among the British and the Americans, and at the time of the Communist Revolution, although it came as a surprise and people didn’t like it, the feelings of British and the Americans did not change toward the Russian farmers, people in small businesses, tradesmen, and younger Russian men and women. This is

43. Japan-America Student Conference started before the war, continuing until today, and many participants later became leaders in both countries, such as Dean Rusk, Secretary of State in Kennedy Administration, and former Prime Minister of Japan Miyazawa Kiichi.

63


something only literature can accomplish, acting as a kind of bridge, and this is something I would like to do in the future. […] The dean of the University of Hawaii heard this speech, and said, ‘Why don’t you come to our university?’

Kunihiro actually had been dreaming of going to Scandinavia to study, Denmark or Sweden, as these countries were known for being agricultural, pacifist and welfare nations (see 3.3). Nevertheless, Kunihiro accepted the offer to study in Hawaii, one year after the conference. The dean not only encouraged Kunihiro to study at the University of Hawaii but he let the young Japanese student stay at his place, providing him with an opportunity to live in a different culture. Kunihiro stayed in Hawaii for approximately two and a half years, from age 23 to 25 or 26, studying cultural anthropology.

3.2

Growing up in a bilingual environment

Nishiyama Sen and Sohma Yukika can be classified as the products of what Jim Cummins calls ‘additive bilingualism’ (2000: 37–39),44 fluent and cognitively intelligent in two languages. As Nishiyama aptly summarizes, ‘all the experiences combined have, in a way, automatically made me bilingual.’ On closer look, however, one notices that their respective habitus are quite different. Nishiyama grew up in a monolingual family in an English-speaking environment, while Sohma was brought up in a bilingual family in monolingual Japanese society.

3.2.1 Acquiring English Nishiyama was born in 1911, in Salt Lake City, Utah, to Japanese parents, brought back to Japan briefly when he was around two years old, but mainly lived in the U.S., attending college and obtaining a master’s degree there. He returned to Japan with his mother after his father passed away, under pre-war conditions when it was difficult for a young Japanese-American to find decent work in the U.S. Nishiyama recalls that he never learned ‘child talk’ in Japanese but instead he acquired Japanese spoken by adults. To him, his Japanese was ‘literally my mother’s tongue. My mom’s words…’ Since he only spoke Japanese with his parents, although ‘one step outside the house everything was English,’ he couldn’t understand any

44. The term ‘additive bilingualism’ refers to a form of bilingualism that results when students add a second language to their intellectual tool-kit while continuing to develop conceptually and academically in their first language (Cummins 2000: 37).

Chapter 3. Habitus

nglish at first. Nishiyama recounts one of his early linguistic experiences in a small E town in Nevada when he was about five and a half: I was playing with some American friends – kids in the neighborhood. One day, there was a toy railroad. I couldn’t understand a word they were saying but the American kids and I were playing together, just like romping puppies. And then, after putting a box next to the toy train tracks, a boy said, ‘We’ll make this the station.’ That rang a bell…you know, during the Taisho and Meiji periods in Japan, we didn’t use the Japanese word ‘eki.’ We used an English word ‘station.’ And then I thought, hey, these guys can speak Japanese. So I went home thinking that he speaks Japanese and talked to my mom about it and she told me, ‘No, that’s English.’ So I thought ‘OK, that’s what English is like…’

Nishiyama recalls another episode which, in retrospect, motivated him to learn English. He was around five years old then: It was before I started school. I was playing with American kids in the neighborhood, without understanding what they were saying. And the thing was, whenever one kid slips out of the group, they’d say, ‘Hey, where’re you goin’?’ In English. They said, ‘Hey, where’re you goin’?’ This particular sound only, I was able to guess that it meant where you were going. One day, as evening set in, I tried to slip out of the group to go home since I thought it was nearing dinnertime, but was confronted with, ‘Hey, where’re you goin’?’ Now, how do I say this? I have to tell them that I need to go home and said… I put together the minimal English words that I learned until then, and I think I said something like this. I don’t remember word for word but I said, ‘me, go, me, papa, house.’ Then they said, ‘Oh,’ and understood. I headed home very relieved.

Nishiyama then told his father about this, who taught him to simply respond in such a situation, ‘Home.’ Some days later, his father took him shopping. When they passed a friend’s house, the man asked the little boy, ‘Hey, where’re you goin’?’ Nishiyama replied, ‘Home,’ as his father had taught him, although in this particular situation, he should have answered ‘Shopping’ instead of ‘Home.’ Nishiyama remembers that his father rather than correcting the error and teach him the appropriate answer, simply praised his son and said, ‘Yes, that’s exactly how you should say it,’ which made Nishiyama feel very good. In Nishiyama’s view, his father, not a language or education expert, instinctively tried not to discourage his boy in acquiring English, and provided him with one of the basic things you need in life – ‘you should not be afraid of speaking.’ When Nishiyama was six, his father took him to a small elementary school and on the way, he said to his son gently, ‘Sen, my boy, you are going to school starting today but you aren’t going to understand what the teacher is saying. But it’s okay that

65


you don’t understand. Just quietly listen and that will be fine.’ The six-year-old boy believed his father and thought, ‘Oh, if I didn’t have to worry and just had to listen, then going to school would be easy.’ Nishiyama tells about one episode at school which stayed in his mind to this day: The teacher handed out balls of clay to each pupil at their desk. Then, the teacher said something. I had no idea what was said, so I just stared at the ball of clay and remained still. Then, a boy right behind my desk was babbling away as he worked on his project. Actually it sounded like he was saying, ‘I’m gonna make a turtle, I’m gonna make a turtle, I’m gonna make a turtle...’ I had no idea what he was saying. Finally I turned around, wanting to know what he was saying, and he picked up the object and said, ‘See, this is my turtle,’ and showed it to me. So what do I see but a clay turtle. Oh, I see, the word ‘turtle’ he was uttering means kame. That was my first English lesson at school.

Nishiyama remembers, ‘I continued to attend school on my best behavior, played with other kids in the schoolyard outside, after school and during breaks, and as a result, ‘started to chatter away in English 2 or 3 months later.’ After acquiring what Cummins terms ‘conversational language’ in English, he started to learn ‘academic English’45 (2000), or in Bourdieu’s term ‘langues d’enseignement’ (Miyajima 2003: 25). In Nishiyama’s memory, it started with phonology in the second grade when his teacher began to teach reading and writing: And the teacher wrote letters on the blackboard and taught us how to pronounce each one. And then, the teacher wrote the letter C and explained that it can be pronounced as <s> and also . After that it was the letter A and she said, ‘This can be… or < ae>.’ Then letter T and she explained that it’s pronounced . At this point, I thought, ‘Wait a minute! Then if we arrange those letters to spell ‘c-a-t,’ we could get the word ‘cat’!’ It dawned on me, and I felt as if I had made the century’s biggest discovery… So I went home, properly pronounced the word, and ‘taught’ my mom saying, ‘Mom, this is how you can read English.’ At that time my mom didn’t say that was obvious. She warmly replied, ‘Oh, really. That’s nice.’

Nishiyama’s mother was not a language specialist, but she was an educator who used to teach domestic science at the Nihon Women’s College, one of the two oldest women’s universities in Japan. As such, along with his father, his mother was instrumental in helping Nishiyama feel that he had ‘learned English using my own abilities and that greatly boosted my confidence.’ 45. Cummins, in his earlier study, called the distinction BICS (basic interpersonal communication skills) and CALP (cognitive/academic language proficiency).

Chapter 3. Habitus

Nisihyama attributes his ‘journey in becoming bilingual’ to using both languages since he was a child, Japanese at home and English outside, making him ‘quite fluent in both languages by the second or third grade’ in elementary school.

3.2.2 Critical thinking Unlike Nishiyama, Sohma grew up in a unique environment where she spoke English with her half-British mother and Japanese with her father, living in Japan. Sohma Yukika was born in 1912 in Tokyo. Her father Ozaki Gakudo Yukio (1858– 1954) was a statesman, who studied both in the U.S. and UK from 1888 to 1890, and was well-known for his anti-fascist political views. He served as a member of the Diet for 63 years and was dubbed the ‘Father of Constitutional Government’ for his belief in democracy, peace and internationalism. Her mother, Theodora Hideko, was born in England as a daughter of a Japanese baron and a British woman, came to Japan at the age of 16, and worked as secretary to Mary Fraser, the wife of the UK Minister to Japan, until she married Ozaki, then a Member of the Diet, as well as Governor of Tokyo. In speaking English with her mother, one thing Sohma learned was to use language precisely and accurately, not leaving things ambiguous. For example, whenever Sohma said ‘now,’ her mother would press and ask what exactly she meant by ‘now,’ right now or one minute later (Hinohara & Sohma 2003: 90). Sohma’s daughter Fujiko writes that Sohma did the same thing to her children, telling them that in English, ‘now’ means ‘at once,’ not 5 minutes later (Hara 2005: 19). Other than that, Sohma did not say much about language taught and used at home. Instead, Sohma gave a detailed account of the influence her parents had on her outlook of the world: I myself may have been influenced by the fact that I am quarter-British, but even my father was always saying that Japan is only a part of the whole wide world. That’s why I cannot help but think about the world and its relations.

Sohma denies that she had experienced any difficulty in filling in cultural gaps, ‘Most probably because I grew up in an environment where I did not feel the difference between Japanese and English.’ Sohma adds, however, that she was taught logical reasoning and critical thinking at home, which was never taught at school: So, about arguments, in our house, we were always told, ‘Argue with reason.’ ‘Don’t quibble, but argue with reason.’ Of course, my mother argued, too, very naturally. You can’t say anything without reasoning.

67


Sohma acknowledges that her tendency to think critically came from her parents, especially the way her father reacted to many things that people in pre-war Japan said: ‘I would come home and tell our parents what the teacher taught us, and they would say, “Those are all lies.”…My father didn’t trust education at school and so he complained all the time.’ One illustration Sohma gives is what the teacher said about cherry blossoms: In a geography class in the 5th grade, the teacher said, ‘Cherry blossoms are the soul of Japan. And yet, there is a traitor who gave that soul to a foreign country.’ I was sitting in the front row then, and thought it was stupid to say something like that. It was my father [Governor of Tokyo] who gave cherry trees to the U.S. as a gift from Tokyo, and I knew he didn’t sell the ‘soul’ of Japan. It was then and there that I learned that teachers didn’t know things, and ever since then, I became critical of what the teachers said. My parents taught me to ‘think by yourself ’ and to ‘decide for yourself.’ (Hinohara & Sohma 2003: 111, my translation)

Clearly, as in Sohma’s own analysis, her upbringing nurtured her attitude toward life. When she was as young as 3 or 4 years old, she became aware of her own view of life, which was, ‘Strike, before you are struck. There are only two choices in life. So why wait to be struck?’ In retrospect, Sohma feels this presumably came from watching her elder sister having a hard time being bullied because of her very Caucasian appearance: Back then, I wanted to do everything I could so that I won’t be discriminated against for having European blood in me. I decided to pass as Japanese, and that’s why I kept my mother away from me. Not so much at the Sacred Heart school,46 but I’m sorry to say, I didn’t allow her to come visit at all at Gakushuin.47 Not even to parents-teachers’ meetings. I would tell the teacher, ‘I will take full responsibility, so please tell me everything,’ and never allowed my mother to come to meetings at school… See, I was a self-assertive child…I must have been in 5th grade in elementary school. But I entered a year late, so age-wise I was a 6th grader.

It seems that this remarkable sense of independence and autonomy became the backbone of Sohma’s life, as a person and as an interpreter.

46. Sohma left Sacred Heart and entered Gakushuin Girls School, because when 8-year-old Sohma asked why people are not punished for killing other people in a war, despite the Ten Commandments injunction not to kill, her teacher-nun scolded her and said, “You should not ask such an insolent question” (Hara 2004: 18). 47. A private school, where aristocrats and imperial family members send their children.

Chapter 3. Habitus

3.2.3 Learning Japanese As for learning Japanese, Sohma read Japanese and Chinese classics extensively and remembers that it was her teachers at school who were ‘strict. Japanese was hammered into our brains. This has definitely paid off later.’ While her father never really commented on linguistic issues, he had an indirect way of teaching his daughter by reading much himself, occasionally giving her such comments as ‘You haven’t even read this yet?’ Ozaki was known as a great orator as well, especially for his historic address calling for the impeachment of the Katsura Cabinet. Sohma attributes this to his voluminous reading as well as his strong will and determination. With Nishiyama, while in an elementary school in the U.S., he had lessons of Japanese after school, from four to five, when his friends were outside playing baseball, and he ‘hated’ being ‘stuck inside for an hour studying awful Japanese’ learning to read and write, struggling with kanji characters. However, he liked his teacher, a student from Japan, who taught pupils judo and had a black belt himself. In spite of these lessons, since he rarely used kanji on a daily basis, by the time he graduated from college, Nishiyama didn’t remember any kanji, not even the basic ones. As such, it required Nishiyama a considerable effort to study reading and writing in Japanese later when he was back in Japan and started to work. Since he could not read or write Japanese, he was first assigned to the library, where he ‘started to read electrical engineering textbooks, especially those related to elementary radio communication’: I was able to read katakana and hiragana letters, but not the kanji characters.48 But since I had studied the content in university, I could understand what was being explained. So it was purely using a dictionary to look up the kanji character’s meaning and tracing it from there…

Nishiyama gave a detailed account of how he learned to read and write kanji, which obviously was an enormous task. He learned different forms of the parts that constitute a kanji49 and the number of strokes50 needed, used a Japanese 48. The Japanese writing system consists of three different forms – kanji, imported from China, and its derivatives hiragana and katakana. All three are used daily. 49. The kanji, Chinese characters, are graphic and are formed with a couple of parts – hen, usually on the left and tsukuri on the right. Once you learn various kinds of these parts, you are able to infer the meaning of a kanji. 50. In order to look up a kanji in a dictionary, you need to know how many strokes are used to write it.

69


ictionary for kanji to see how it should be read, and after figuring out how to d read it, he ‘then used a Japanese-English dictionary’ to search for its meaning. He calls this ‘a three-step process’ where he tried to read kanji using English. Nishiyama continued this strenuous study of kanji for about three months and reached junior high school level of literacy, at the same time acquiring technical terminology in Japanese. Then he was assigned to another department, where his boss trained him by having him write reports on weekly experiments. His boss would ‘edit it using a red pen’ and Nishiyama made sure that ‘If something was corrected once, I made it a point to remember it.’ Eventually, ‘the red pen marks for corrections began to diminish,’ and after many years of continuous efforts, by about 1939, there was nothing for his boss to edit and he finally became confident about reading and writing, enabling him to use Japanese and English in much the same way. Nishiyama summarizes that all his experiences, including the steps he took to study Japanese, helped make him bilingual – comfortable in both languages. Bourdieu, in discussing language and communication, did not particularly consider ‘language capital’ of bilingual or multilingual agents (Miyajima 2003: 35). However, it is evident that Nishiyama and Sohma, although their linguistic habitus were different, were both blessed with language capital which enabled them to become autonomous learners.

3.3

Experiencing World War II

One thing the five interpreters with varied experiences shared was the experience of World War II. The stories were told with frequent references to WWII to mark the time, as ‘before the war,’ ‘during the war’ or ‘after the war.’ The interviewees often talked about the end of the war using the term ‘haisen’ (defeat in the war) or a more popular euphemism ‘shusen’ (end of the war). In this section, differing dimensions of war are narrated by the five people in testimony to show how each person was affected by WWII.

3.3.1 Pre-war years As the daughter of a pacifist politician, Sohma remembers well the ambience of pre-war Japan, which bothered her and her father greatly. When the Japanese Army invaded Manchuria in 1931, Sohma was in Los Angeles visiting her mother, who was ill and hospitalized. It was ‘around September 17 or 18, when the newspapers issued a special edition in Los Angeles, announcing “Japan invades

Chapter 3. Habitus

Manchuria.” ’Her father kept saying ‘Japan is making a mistake,’ and ‘there was much pressure at that time to shut Ozaki’s mouth.’ Sohma recalls that on their way to New York in October from LA, they stopped in Washington DC, and her father went to see President Hoover, while Sohma and her sister were waiting at the hotel: He came back saying, ‘What a shame. What a pity.’ We asked what the problem was, and he said, ‘Everyone there, including Hoover, believes Japan’s governmental policy to be non-expansionist, that Japan will not invade any further.’

Sohma reminisced about her father telling her that in spite of his efforts to explain the danger, Hoover and his people replied, ‘The Japanese government has never told a lie since the Meiji era. So, we will believe what the Japanese government says.’ Ozaki told his daughters, ‘It is a shame to see the trust eroded. The world trust that has been formed since the reign of the Meiji Emperor...’ That was when Sohma strongly felt ‘the importance of trust between countries.’ Sohma’s mother passed away in London the following year, and the family returned to Japan in January of 1933: ‘There, in Kobe, the rightists awaited us with a flag saying, “Ozaki shall not be permitted to disembark.”’ Ozaki, his two daughters and the mother’s remains sailed to Yokohama, where ‘we secretly got off. We went back to our house in Zushi, constantly worrying what people might do to us. That was in Japan, in 1933.’ Ozaki was ‘doing the best he could to stop what the military was trying to do, but even the Diet was on the side of the army, and there was nothing you could do about the whole situation.’ The militaristic movements not only worried Ozaki Yukio, but they bothered his daughter deeply, especially after she married Viscount Sohma and became pregnant with their first child: Those days, the entire air surrounding Japan was rightist. The education was geared toward the ‘Empire of Japan’ – even education had changed. I did not want my child to receive such education, but I could not do anything about it… So I was extremely troubled…she was to be born in May. So, around March…I went to my father for some advice, and he said, ‘They are all idiots. There’s nothing to be done.’ This was getting me nowhere. My father can’t do anything about it, so obviously there is nothing I can do, I thought. On the other hand, my child was to be born. I was at a loss as to what to do.

It was ‘during this helpless period’ in 1939 that an American friend of hers introduced Sohma to an MRA woman who came from the U.S. to Japan and explained the philosophy of Moral Re-Armament51 that ‘You can’t just blame other people. 51. More on MRA in Section 4.2.

71

72


That’s what the whole world is doing. Even if you blame them, they are not going to change. People are always paying more attention to themselves. The only thing you can do is for yourself to change.’ Sohma quite agreed but the question was how it could be done: You have to change yourself. How? Well, she told me to have a guidance based on four absolute norms. But you know, she says you would have to ask God to give you this guidance, and I didn’t believe it at first. ‘That doesn’t matter,’ she said and kept saying, ‘He believes in you.’ Well, I didn’t know about that, but I couldn’t do anything else to remedy the situation, so I thought maybe I’d give it a try. And that’s how it started.

Then, in November or December of 1939, some MRA members visited Japan and asked Sohma to be their interpreter, which marked ‘my first interpreting experience.’ And this was the beginning of Sohma’s lasting involvement with MRA, including her first involvement with simultaneous interpreting after the war. Nishiyama, an electrical engineering major, graduated from college in 1932 at the age of 21. It was only a few years after the worldwide Great Depression, which made it extremely difficult for any graduate, let alone a young American of Japanese descent, to find work. Nishiyama somehow found a part-time cleaning job at his university, when one day he was offered a teaching assistant job: And so I was washing windows. Then, the dean of College of Electrical Engineering saw me and said, ‘Hey, Nishiyama, do you wanna job for this fall?’ I said, ‘Do I want a job!?’ I practically jumped off my perch on the window and followed him. And then this professor said, ‘I’m now able to hire one teaching assistant, and this assistant position is open.’ He was kind enough to say, ‘So, if you want it, it’s yours.’ Luckily, my grades at school had been at the top of the class. I was lucky.

Nishiyama believes that the dean offered him a teaching assistant job because he was the top of his class, and goes on to explain why he earned such good grades: In those days, most American companies did not hire people of Japanese descent, or Asians in general. […] Because of racial prejudice. When I was in Salt Lake City, I experienced racial discrimination in different ways. However, schools were different. There was no such discrimination. In other words, the relative standing of students in school was determined by their grades and I was fully aware of this situation. I certainly didn’t dream of coming to Japan, and intended to live in the States all my life, and I’d have to live with discrimination. So my motivation was that I had to get good grades at school, otherwise nobody would recognize me. Isn’t it interesting that such social problems became a motivation to study? Looking back on it, it turned out to be a positive thing for me. Racial discrimination

Chapter 3. Habitus

worked positively for me to study harder. Because of this, I pulled many all-nighters to study, to do homework, and got the best grades.

Consequently, Nishiyama had all ‘A’s except in history, and these good grades earned him the teaching assistant position, which he occupied for two years. In the spring of 1934, Nishiyama finished his graduate work in electrical engineering with a Master of Science degree, when his father became ill. Nishiyama recounts the racial discrimination he experienced: Around that time, a human resources representative of a company came, and had interviews with different students. My professor recommended me, and I had an interview with this representative. And this person said, ‘All right.’ After all, my grades were very good, so he said, ‘Okay, you should go to the headquarters for a year, get some training there, and then our company has a subsidiary in Japan, so why don’t you go there and work?’ So, I thought, sure that’s all right. I had never even dreamed of going to Japan but at least I can work at the headquarters for a year. And so I said, ‘If there is such a job opening, I would be very happy to take it.’ Remember, the entire world was going through the time of the Great Depression, and for a long time, there was no employment for anyone. After a while, the human resources representative sent me a letter saying, ‘I had told you that we would send you to Japan after training here for a year, but U.S.-Japan relations have deteriorated and the situation has become so tense that we are finding it difficult to continue our operations at the subsidiary in Japan. We regret to inform you that we are not able to hire you.’ So I wrote back. In the letter I said, ‘No, it is not necessary for me to go to Japan. I am an American who majored in electrical engineering, and would be happy to work at your headquarters.’ And then another letter came, right before my dad died, which said, ‘We are unable to hire you under conditions other than what we offered you before.’ That was a tremendous shock for me. At this moment, I learned for the first time what racial discrimination was all about. What made the matter worse, my dad had one foot in the grave. To receive such kind of letter at that particular moment was, for a young man…but there was nothing I could do.

Nishiyama’s father passed away shortly after this. Since his mother did not want to stay in the States after her husband died, Nishiyama decided to come back to Japan with her, because ‘as an only child I felt responsible for her.’ However, he was hoping the economy would pick up while in Japan, and thought, ‘if there was a job opening, I would go back to the U.S., work, and send money to my mother.’ Once in Japan, despite his initial reluctance to come back, Nishiyama became enchanted with the beauty and warmth of his homeland:

73

74


It was the autumn of 1934, and my cousin showed me around Tokyo. Autumn is often referred to as ‘autumn for art,’ right? So, my cousin took me to an art gallery in Ueno and showed me a variety of paintings and wood carvings. I was so surprised. You see, I grew up in Salt Lake, a very remote place in those days, and things like culture and art, well, they did exist to a certain degree, but I thought, ‘Wow, the Japanese are people that make such wonderful things. I’m impressed!’ I was overwhelmed. On top of it, all my relatives fussed about me and they were so nice to me. And when I looked around, everyone seemed to have the same sort of face. Wow, I never realized there would be so many Japanese. I thought, ‘They all look like me!’

Nishiyama found also that there was no need to worry about prejudice and so he ‘absolutely fell in love with Japan. I thought, what a wonderful place.’ Having come back to Japan, it didn’t take Nishiyama long to find work. It so happened that his great uncle, professor at the Tokyo Imperial University in the Meiji period, was the founding director of the Electrotechnical Laboratory of the Ministry of Communications, and he asked the director of this governmental institute if there were any openings: Anyhow, my great uncle told me, ‘Take your résumé and your transcripts, and go see the director.’ […] I went to see the director of the Electrotechnical Laboratory and he kindly interviewed me in his office. I showed him my transcripts. He saw my grades and said, ‘Oh, these are pretty good grades,’ and told me, ‘Well, we will hire you,’ on the spot.

Although Nishiyama was offered a position immediately, he did not forget to remind the director of his nationality: I replied, ‘Oh, I see,’ and added, ‘but sir, to tell you the truth, nationality-wise, I am an American, which means I am a foreigner here.’ He generously said, ‘That is not a problem.’ And he hired me. I asked, ‘Sir, when shall I start?’ and his reply was, ‘Well, you can start tomorrow, if you like.’ It was as easy as that. In other words, I was a lucky kid. I must say I was blessed with much good fortune.

This marked the beginning of not only Nishiyama’s professional career, but his relearning of his native language in terms of reading and writing in academic and technical Japanese, which many years later would have tremendous impact on his interpreting career.

Chapter 3. Habitus

3.3.2 Wartime days Muramatsu rememberd clearly the day the war started: On the day the Pacific War started, the whole class was at a movie theater in Asakusa, to see a movie. The movie was Triumph of the Will, the one about the Berlin Olympics. It was directed by Leni Riefenstahl, who died yesterday,52 a German lady who was known as pro-Nazi. I remember it very well. We saw the movie and came out of the theater to find that the war had started. When the teacher told us the news…we were all children and we thought, ‘Wow!’ And walking back to Kuramae, I remember all of us chanting something like, ‘The war has begun…’

Muramatsu also remembered the days without much food, air-raids that started in Tokyo and working in factories instead of studying toward the end of the war. He explains why he entered the Tokyo Aviation Engineering School: I loved model airplanes as a boy. I dreamed of flying, but the thing is, I get motion sickness. So that wasn’t going to work, and therefore I decided I would build airplanes instead. There was a school in Minami Senju called Tokyo Prefectural Aviation Engineering School, which was founded as a national policy. […] So I studied aviation there. Despite the need to educate college graduates as flight engineers for the war, there was not enough time. Therefore, this school was going to train junior high school students…that is, fifth grade students in the old junior high school system…to assist college graduate engineers.

Kunihiro gave a most detailed and a vivid account of his days during the war. After explaining about English being the ‘language of the enemy’ (Section 1, this chapter), he depicts the dreadful situation he remembers: More serious were the severe food shortages, and the living conditions were truly dreadful. And pretty soon, when I was in the second year of junior high school, air raids started. And when I was in the second and third year of junior high school, I was in Kobe then, there were air raids in Kobe, and my house was burned down three times. And the food shortages were extremely serious. In those days, ordinary citizens in big cities […] were able to receive only 1200 calorie ration of food per day. It may not be clear to you how much that is, but 1200 calories would be what a seriously ill person, a strange analogy I admit, but like a diabetes patient, is allowed to take in one day. […] when I say 1200 calories, I don’t mean proper rice or proper food. In the extreme cases, yam leaves were given. Leaves or stems,

52. September 9, 2003.

75

76


things like that. […] As such, to put it bluntly, something like English, you didn’t at all feel like studying.

Kunihiro talked about the food shortages extensively, adding that he wanted to study in Denmark, Sweden or Norway, for several reasons. One was food: And the food shortage was the biggest problem. And you know, Northern Europe had great agricultural countries with an abundance of agricultural products, butter and cheese – dairy farming and stock breeding included. We were starving in Japan. I think that food had a lot to do with the fact that I was attracted to Scandinavia.

Another element was that Scandinavian countries were welfare states, and ‘it was a time when people were attracted and interested in welfare states. Japan was in a miserable state back then.’ One more attraction, probably the most important one for Kunihiro, was he thought Scandinavian countries were ‘complete pacifists’: ‘I experienced more than enough hardships during the war and became a total pacifist. I had become a pacifist. Almost a religious pacifist. I still am…’ Kunihiro is widely known as a staunch pacifist, an advocate of Japan’s ‘heiwa kenpo’ (Peace Constitution), and he started to talk about his aversion to war, nearly in tears, when he remembered the situation during the war: […] Then, when I was in the second year of junior high, it started – what you call air raids. Toward the end of the war, they came about twice a week, the air raids. My house was bombed and burned down three times. And in my neighborhood, there was my..., who treated me like his brother – he was what you call now a university student, and he helped me with my studies. A bomb hit him in his thighs, you see, and in no time he turned pale and died. In my arms. When a person dies, you know, you convulse. You have convulsions like this. He convulsed and passed away. I held his head in my arms like this, but there was nothing I could do. I couldn’t do anything, and before I knew it, he passed away. I experienced something like this, and so it’s natural that I do not want a war. I cannot possibly say, ‘Yes, let’s go to war.’ No matter what! Even if I were turned upside down. So these were the kinds of things that surrounded me when I first started to learn English.

While Kunihiro, Muramatsu and Komatsu were all in Japan during the war, Sohma experienced wartime as a wife and mother in China. She accompanied her lieutenant husband to Manchuria, had her youngest child there, and came back to Japan with her four children. Her youngest was only 6 months old, and the trip back home by train to Rajin, then by ship to Niigata was a hard one. Sohma recalls ‘it was really hard’ and narrated the details, how they had to wait for the boat back

Chapter 3. Habitus

to Japan, which finally came. Her eldest child Fujiko was born in May of 1939, and was about 5 or 6 years old when they traveled home in 1945: We had to walk up the gangplank to the boat, and Fujiko still tells me that she thought at that time, ‘The only person who can take care of me in this world is myself ’… So we got to Niigata, but we had no place to stay. And since we had to take the train, we headed towards the station. I don’t remember how we got there, though. I was hoping to stay at this inn in front of the station, but I was told that no room was available. I said, ‘Okay, I hear you. But I am taking the first train in the morning, so let me just stay somewhere’ and tried to negotiate by offering some sugar from ration distribution. Seeing that I was with children, they decided to let us stay in some kind of a closet for bedding.

After Sohma safely landed and spent the night in Niigata, the following morning, she headed for Sohma in Fukushima Prefecture, where her husband Viscount Sohma owned the family estate. However, since people did not welcome Ozaki Yukio’s daughter, Sohma and her children moved to the Ozaki family villa in Karuizawa and stayed there until the family went back to Tokyo after the war (Nishijima 2002).

3.3.3 Post-war period Kunihiro witnessed Japan’s defeat in Kobe, when he was in the third year in junior high school, and ‘the year after the defeat in the war…I thought, I would do anything to go to Denmark.’ Unfortunately, there were no official diplomatic relations between Denmark and Japan then, hence there was no embassy. However, Kunihiro found in the newspaper that Denmark would ‘open a legation in Japan,’ and thought, ‘This is it!’ He then used a Japanese-English dictionary and wrote a letter to the Honourable Minister, who to a Japanese high school boy was ‘someone above the clouds.’ Kunihiro remembers that ‘From above the clouds, Minister Tiritse replied to my letter and I was so happy.’ There were actually two things he had requested in the letter. Firstly, he wanted a book published by the Copenhagen University Press. The University of Copenhagen was ‘famous for linguistics with scholars such as Otto Jespersen’ and Kunihiro ‘found out somewhere that Paul Christophersen, a student of Dr. Jespersen’s, wrote a 700 page dissertation on Articles in English. Kunihiro maintains that he was ‘very interested in articles. Extremely interested,’ so much so that he once received a compliment from a renowned American professor praising him for not making mistakes in his usage of English articles, when Japanese people tend to make errors with articles.

77

78


The second request Kunihiro wrote was: ‘I would very much like to study in Denmark. Honourable Minister, I would appreciate it if you could help me make my wish of studying in your country become a reality.’ Young Kunihiro put much effort in writing this letter, looking up almost every word in the dictionary, not expecting he would receive a reply. Then about a month later, the Danish Minister sent him a reply. As for the boy’s first request, he wrote, ‘I understand your request about the book. I will order it for you and send it to your place when it arrives.’ Months later, the book arrived by surface mail, airmail not being available those days. Young Kunihiro was excited to see that book, but also, he was enchanted by the ‘foreignness’ it brought: ‘this book…used European style binding, or should I say, French style. In other words, it was different from these types of books you see now, so you had to cut it open each time and read it like this…French binding. It distinctly had a European smell. The smell…it had a Western aroma.’ As for Kunihiro’s wish to study at the University of Copenhagen, the Minister replied by saying that he himself was a graduate of the University of Copenhagen and that he was delighted to hear the wish. He then continued, ‘It would be wonderful if you could attend my alma mater in the future but at present unfortunately, our countries do not have official diplomatic relations. Without such relations, it is indeed difficult to grant students’ wish to study in each other’s countries. When diplomatic ties should be restored in the future, we would be happy to welcome you. As a Dane, I look forward to having you come to our country.’ While the letter was disappointing, Kunihiro was truly thankful ‘to have received such a sincere reply to my letter, written by a young nobody living in a country defeated in the war.’ Kunihiro still keeps the book and remembers his feelings then. Like many college students in Japan of his time, Komatsu liked English and joined ESS, where for the first time he spoke English with other members. And like many Japanese college students of his time, Komatsu was a leftist. These two elements led him to volunteer to do interpreting for the annual conference against atomic and hydrogen bombs held by Gensuikyo: And then I started to interpret for the Gensuikyo. That would be out of the question today, with current professional standards and ethics. However, it would be wrong to say that I was useless as an interpreter. I was quite useful, you know. I was in my sophomore year in university, and I escorted approximately 15 foreign representatives on my own to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and did consecutive interpreting for their speeches at a meeting there. And as in the case of productivity missions, Japanese interpreters used portable microphones like this one, to interpret for foreign delegates. […]

Chapter 3. Habitus

Well, in a way, you could say it was formidable. One contributing factor was because I felt that I was a part of the movement against atomic and hydrogen bombs. I felt very strongly about it, as I was a leftist myself. For this reason, I tried my very best. I worked together with Asano-san, Fukui-san, Mitsunobu-san, and others from Tokyo University of Foreign Studies; the group was called ‘the Gensuikyo interpreters.’ They all experienced simultaneous interpreting there, and I must say, Fukui-san, Mitsunobu-san, and Asano-san were all outstanding interpreters. They all learned their English in Japan, just like I did.

Gensuikyo has held World Conferences against A & H Bombs annually since 1955, and started to use simultaneous interpreting with the second conference, because the official languages of the conference included not only Japanese and English but other languages such as French, German, Spanish and Russian (Komatsu 2003: 79). They recruited student volunteers as interpreters, providing on-the-job training opportunities for prospective interpreters. Komatsu volunteered to do interpreting from the very first conference. As such, when Komatsu applied to go to the United States as an interpreter, he already had ‘some experience as an interpreter.’

3.4

Discussion

The narratives of the five pioneers about their earlier life in many ways are enlightening. While the five pioneers’ habitus were varied, they had a few things in common: encounters with language which possibly helped foster their sensitivity toward language in general; parental influence, especially their fathers; wartime experience; incidents that prompted their interest and motivation in English; and curiosity as part of their personality. It is noteworthy that all five interpreters gave accounts of events which in retrospect might have helped them become sensitive to languages. Nishiyama became aware of English as distinct from his mother tongue, when as a small boy, he did not know how to express his wish to go home, and when he first learned the relationship between spelling and the sound in English at school. Muramatsu remembers that he realized the power of speech when he confronted a neighborhood bully with words. While Komatsu did not discuss his childhood, it can be surmised from his patchwork of narratives that he was made aware of language precisely because he felt he was not good at speaking. Likewise, Sohma was not particularly articulate about her early contacts with the two languages, and yet it became clear from her narratives that even as a child she was conscious of

79


language as something to reason with logic and accuracy. Kunihiro attributed his interest in language to two factors: his father’s attitude toward Chinese language, and his moving from Tokyo to Kobe, where the language spoken was completely different from Tokyo dialect. It can be summarized that early experiences with language are important in forming later attitudes toward language, but that they do not have to be in a foreign language, and experiences with mother tongue are just as important. Kunihiro pointed out the influence of his father on his outlook on language, through the teaching of oral reading of Chinese classics. Significantly, Kunihiro is not the only one who talked about his father. Four of the five subjects talked at length about their fathers, without being prompted by the interviewer, the one exception being Komatsu, who declined to discuss his family on record as being too private. Although Nishiyama talked about his mother with affection, he talked more about his father. It was his father, Nishiyama explained, who did not discourage him from speaking when he made a mistake in English, and it was his father who assured him that he need not worry at school even though he could not speak English. Similarly, Muramatsu singled out his father as the one who influenced him by taking him often to movies and musicals. Sohma likewise spoke more about her father, with respect and adoration, although obviously her mother played a key role in forming Sohma’s inclination toward language, by disciplining her daughter to speak precisely and logically. Although the amount of time they spent talking about wartime experiences varied, from detailed accounts by Kunihiro to virtually none by Komatsu, they all experienced and were affected by World War II one way or the other. However, it is amazing how they perceived war as something between nations, quite apart from individuals that constitute a country. Kunihiro, for example, whose house was bombed and burned three times and whose good friend was killed by a bomb, which made him a staunch pacifist, held no ill feelings toward prisoners of war or occupying soldiers, and was ready to go and study in Hawaii. Muramatsu did not hesitate to work for the Occupation Forces, and Komatsu, a leftist student, liked American literature and music and was eager to learn about the United States. The narratives by Nishiyama and Sohma offer invaluable insights into the situation in the U.S. and in Japan before the war broke out. For one thing, Nishiyama admitted that he made sure to get good grades at school in order to fight racial discrimination in the U.S. Usually calm and mellow Nisihyama never talked in a vehement way, but was quite straightforward when he recounted the discrimination he experienced in the United States, his country, simply because he was Japanese-American. Although he asked to delete the name of the company which treated him unfairly, he left the story itself intact, giving permission to keep it on record. Contrary to the situation in the U.S., surprisingly,

Chapter 3. Habitus

a government organization in Japan hired Nishiyama, just before the war, knowing that technically he was not a Japanese citizen but an American, having been born in the United States. It did not present any problems, presumably because it was obvious Nishiyama was Japanese by birth. Sohma’s story about her father, Ozaki Yukio, and his view of pre-war Japan, including his desperate efforts to prevent Japan from going to war, is informative and moving. Sohma offered a unique perspective on Japan seen from an exceptional position, and her account revealed the existence of an outspoken, courageous and independent woman in Japan more than half a century ago. Kunihiro’s encounter with a prisoner of war from Scotland, as well as his contact with soldiers of the Occupation Forces, is both amazing and touching. Here, again, an unknown picture of the situation in Japan during and immediately after the war is presented. It is not commonly known that there were POW camps all over Japan, as in Kunihiro’s testimony, and that although it was officially prohibited to contact prisoners of war, the fact was they were not entirely inaccessible for Japanese citizens. The lack of tension and hostility between soldiers of the Occupation Forces and the citizens of the occupied nation is also remarkable, something not usually reported. Interaction between the Japanese people and the soldiers from different countries is possibly an interesting area of enquiry from the perspective of interpersonal and intercultural communication. One thing about wartime Japan which has to be mentioned here is that, contrary to popular notions, or at least to the surprise of the interviewer, who held the impression that teaching English was prohibited during the war, both Muramatsu and Kunihiro testified that they did indeed study English at school in the middle of war. Muramatsu even went so far as to say that he was blessed with an outstanding teacher of English thanks to the government policy, in his view, to have quality English language education in a public school specializing in aviation, which was deemed important for the government. Kunihiro also testified that the outstanding textbooks by Baron Kanda Naibu were used during the war, and that the Ministry of Education started to authorize textbooks of English toward the end of the war. This is contrary to the generally held belief that English was totally banned as a hostile language, and contradicts the collective memory of the Japanese contemporaries that they were not allowed to use English and had to change English loan words, such as baseball terms, into Japanese. It seems as if the government of Japan, before and during the war, was ambivalent in their attitude toward the English language, resulting in double standards in their policy, and despite the antagonistic campaign against the language of the enemy, the Ministry of Education was well aware of the importance of English language teaching and learning. Yamaguchi Makoto (2001) found that NHK,

81

82


public broadcasting corporation, started its Eigo Kõza (English lesson) programs long before the war, in 1925 with Okakura Yoshisaburo53 as the first instructor, continued the broadcasts until the morning of the Pearl Harbor attack on December 8, 1941, and resumed the program one month after the end of the war (36). All these contradictory findings tell us that the issue of language in society and in government policies before, during, and after the war is one area where more research should be carried out. Another area which merits attention from the point of view of English language education is how the pioneer interpreters learned English. Despite the recent trends in English language teaching which emphasize practical and functional aspects of communication, Muramatsu, Kunihiro and Komatsu all admitted that the English education they received was the grammar-translation method, which in itself is expected, but what is significant is they all felt it was effective and contributed to their proficiency in English. Closely related to language learning is the element of motivation. The narratives of the three interpreters, who lived in Japan and studied English as a foreign language, presented some incidents or factors which presumably helped them to be interested in English and motivated them to study the language. For example, it was talking to a prisoner of war from Scotland that excited the teenaged Kunihiro, so much so that he was ‘bewitched with English’ all his life. For Muramatsu, it was the way his teacher communicated successfully with American soldiers that impressed him, strongly motivating him to study English to become like his teacher. For Komatsu, it was his interest in the United States that motivated him to study English. It is insightful that all of these motivations fall within the category of self-determination (intrinsic) forms of motivation, rather than controlled (extrinsic), in the self-determination continuum proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985, 2001: 28). Additionally, it seems the personal traits of the five subjects might have something to do with their becoming interested in English, for although their characters are different, there is one attribute that the five pioneers share, namely their immense intellectual curiosity. It was curiosity that drove Muramatsu, Kunihiro and Komatsu to venture on new things, such as applying to go to the United States to be trained at the U.S. Department of State. It was curiosity that drove Sohma to join Moral Re-Armament. It was curiosity that drove Nishiyama to try simultaneous interpreting for Apollo space mission broadcasts, to cite just a few examples. As Muramatsu aptly pointed out, ‘curiosity’ is a ‘vital qualification’ for interpreting,

53. Professor of English at the Tokyo Koto Shihan Gakko and later, Rikkyo University.

Chapter 3. Habitus

and all five pioneer interpreters evidently possess abundant curiosity, along with the will and the determination to pursue what they decided to do.

3.5

Conclusion

In this chapter, the habitus of each of the five subjects was explored, from their upbringing and early contact with language, particularly the acquisition and learning of both their mother tongue and a foreign or a second language, as well as from their wartime experiences, ascertaining that they had tremendous impact on their lives. The five subjects were categorized in two broad groups: Kunihiro, Muramatsu and Komatsu in one category, learning English as a foreign language, while Nishiyama and Sohma in the other, acquiring English in a bilingual environment. Notwithstanding some commonalities, it is clear from their narratives that they are the products of differing habitus, each unique in its own way. Supposedly shared experiences of the war manifested different experiences with varying influences on the ensuing life of each of the pioneer interpreters. Likewise, even when being grouped together because of seemingly similar backgrounds, the ways they learned languages were individually unique, from Kunihiro’s read-aloud method to Nishiyama’s rigorous writing exercises. At the same time, however, some basic features were evident which enabled them to excel in their linguistic and communicative endeavours. They had early memories of coming in contact with language, which helped shape their later outlook on language, and their fathers played crucial roles in this formation. They experienced war, which did not have direct bearing on language per se, but nevertheless had an important impact on their life, as shown in the case of Kunihiro turning into a staunch pacifist. In language learning, all five subjects shared striking similarity in the enormous efforts they exerted in learning both Japanese and English, by reading extensively and intensively. In addition, interestingly, both Sohma and Kunihiro, with entirely different habitus, mentioned the need to study Chinese classics, and Muramatsu and Komatsu emphasized the significance of studying literature, English and Japanese. This is to testify that for interpreters, despite their work being oral, the basic foundation to enable their work has to be built with solid blocks, some of which are classics, the linguistic and cultural heritage across history. All three interpreters who studied English in Japan revealed that the grammar-translation method was not entirely useless in achieving proficiency in a foreign language. Also, some concrete examples of incidents were detailed which helped motivate them in their study of English.

83

84


Another common attribute found among the five interpreters is their immense curiosity to propel them into adventurous actions, along with their strong will to sustain their endeavours. The following chapter will be devoted to observing further the habitus at work in the field, by studying the narratives of the five subjects to see how they entered the field of interpreting, and how they finally became intercultural communication professionals at international conferences and in diplomatic negotiations.

chapter 4

Into the field of interpreting

Interpreters are an ambivalent presence. As in-between figures, crossing linguistic and cultural boundaries, they are both valued and at the same time treated with hidden contempt. Michael Cronin considers this the ‘problem of control,’ arguing that ‘Proximity is both desirable and dreaded. The desire is to manipulate and the dread comes from the fear of being misled, either by the native interpreter or by the nonnative interpreter going native’ (2002: 55). Cronin designates two different kinds of interpreters in the colonial past: The choice for the architects of empire was between what might be termed heteronomous and autonomous systems of interpreting. A heteronomous system involves recruiting local interpreters and teaching them the imperial language. The interpreters may be recruited either by force or through inducements. An autonomous system is one where colonizers train their own subjects in the language or languages of the colonized. (2002: 55)

Whereas it is obviously far-fetched to make an analogy of post-war Japan with an imperial colony, the fact that the United States, an occupying country, tried to recruit interpreter trainees from the youth in Japan, a defeated country, is somewhat reminiscent of the ‘heteronomous system,’ although the interpreters, including Muramatsu, Kunihiro and Komatsu, wished to be trained of their own will and were already able to speak the language of the victor. Sohma, despite her upbringing as a bilingual daughter of a Japanese-British mother, was asked to do simultaneous interpreting for MRA conferences as a Japanese interpreter, and has worked for Japanese politicians as their interpreter. Nishiyama, on the other hand, was born and brought up as an American citizen in the United States, eventually working as an official interpreter for ambassadors at the U.S. Embassy in Japan. In this chapter, life stories of the five interpreters will be examined focusing on the beginning of their career, to see how they went into the ‘field’ of interpreting. In Section 4.1, stories are told by Muramatsu, Kunihiro and Nishiyama, who all worked for the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Allied Forces in different capacities. Particularly for Nishiyama and Muramatsu, their work at GHQ laid the foundation for their future careers. In the following section, Sohma’s initiation into the field of interpreting is studied. In Section 4.3, the narratives


of Muramatsu, Kunihiro and Komatsu show how the ‘heteronomous’ interpreters were given on-the-job training in the U.S., which in later years would have profound impact on interpreting as a profession in Japan. In Section 4.4, a brief account of the initial Japan-U.S. Ministerial Meetings on Trade and Economic Affairs is offered, to show how Nishiyama in Hakone, followed by Muramatsu and Kunihiro in Washington DC, contributed to the first official attempts at simultaneous interpreting. The final section is devoted to the discussion of the insights and implications drawn from the experiences of the five pioneers.

4.1

Occupation Forces

Nishiyama, Muramatsu and Kunihiro, by chance, all worked for GHQ at different locations, in different capacities, and consequently with differing experiences. For Kunihiro, like many of his contemporaries, working for GHQ was out of economic necessity: […] my father had failed in his business. It was like ‘a samurai trying to do business’…he was not suited or trained for the job and thus failed. He ended up deeply in debt, and our household finances were awfully tight. And my brothers – I’m the eldest and have five, six younger siblings. We were the perfect example of what they call, ‘the poor with many kids.’ So I thought, ‘I have to do something about this. I have to help my father.’

He was hired by GHQ’s Civil Affairs Section in Urawa, Saitama Prefecture, and worked as their translator: Thinking back, I can’t believe I actually did such a thing, but I was a something clerk…a translating clerk or something…who translated Japanese into English, or rather like English composition; and commuted to Urawa everyday. I don’t remember exactly how much I got, but being those days, it must have been around 10,000 yen a month. You could wish for nothing better if you received 10,000 yen, in those days.

Then Kunihiro started to think about going to college, feeling that ‘it would make a big difference in my long life whether I went to university or not.’ Since he worked during the day, he looked for universities which offered evening courses, and decided to study at night at Aoyama Gakuin University in Shibuya, a convenient location for commuting. Kunihiro spent some time ‘going to Urawa during the day to do translation, and to Aoyama Gakuin University in the evening,’ when one day, he ran into a friend at Dogenzaka in Shibuya, who said, ‘Hey, they’re holding a Japan-America

Chapter 4. Into the field of interpreting

Student Conference soon. It’s a revival of what existed before the war. Why don’t you apply?’ Kunihiro decided to apply to be a student delegate for this conference, was selected, and went to Hawaii, which he believes, marked the beginning of his ‘destiny’ and his relation ‘with the outside world.’ Muramatsu tried to work for the Allied Forces, wishing to learn English. He first worked at a Commonwealth camp in Tokyo with mainly Australian soldiers. He then went to a typing school in Kanda, where he studied twice as hard as the other students and was soon able to type 50 words a minute, which made him eligible to apply for GHQ work as a typist. He was interviewed by Mrs. Edna Callow, then chief of the welfare section, when the Tokyo Military Government Team changed its name to the Tokyo Civil Affairs Team of GHQ. Muramatsu did not speak English well. He had a hard time understanding Mrs. Callow when she told him to ‘Come back at one-thirty,’ because he was not familiar with the American way of slurring the ‘t’ sound in ‘thirty.’ Mrs. Callow later told Muramatsu that she was not impressed with his English but that she decided to hire him out of sympathy. Thanks to her kindness, Muramatsu was hired, at a salary of about 6,000 yen a month, and he vowed to himself that he would become the best typist in Japan (Muramatsu 1978: 6–7). He soon realized that typing becomes faster with linguistic knowledge and started to regard the other female typists as ‘copyists’: And since I had knowledge of English, I didn’t make any typos. Back then, there were these ‘girls’, as we used to call them, and these ordinary female typists didn’t know the meaning of words in English. They were simply copying letters. I used to look down on them and say, ‘They are copyists,’ because they were just copying. To me, they weren’t really typists. For example, if you know it’s a transitive verb, even if it is immediately followed by an inserted phrase, you know that an object would follow. The reason many typists skip a line is because they are not thinking about the meaning, and that’s why they skip. This never happened with me.

Muramatsu soon became an expert typist. He typed so fast that people watched in astonishment, describing it ‘like a machine-gun,’ and one of the Americans called him, ‘the fastest typist west of the Rockies.’ On top of having studied grammar thoroughly reading An Outline of English Syntax by Hosoe Itsunori, Muramatsu studied Writer’s Guide to English and the Manual of Style, so much so that soon he was correcting what the Americans wrote. Sometimes, offended native speakers would challenge him and they made bets on grammar, but it was always Muramatsu who won, enabling him to earn some extra dollars, when a dollar was 360 yen (Muramatsu 1978: 7–9). Before long, they made Muramatsu the chief clerk, supervising three typists, and his salary went up. However, he noticed that the interpreters’ pay envelopes

87

88


‘were much thicker’ than his. Salaries were not paid through bank transfers then. The money was handed out in brown envelopes with names written on them. It was obvious ‘if someone was earning three times as much as you were making.’ There were several senior interpreters around, men and women, young and middle-aged, and ‘they looked so sophisticated’ when they acted as mediators between Japanese and the Americans. And there was something else he noticed other than their bulky pay envelopes: So I would listen to them, but they were making quite a few mistakes. The errors were not so much to do with the meaning per se, but to me…For instance, there was a kind, elegant middle-aged lady, a Japanese-American. She was born in the States, but came back before the war and lost her citizenship and became a Japanese national. […] This lady spoke quite fluently, but since she never studied English properly, although it was spoken English, she often made mistakes. For instance, she would say ‘in actual’ instead of ‘actually.’ The word ‘actual’ is an adjective, so in my view, it’s hardly possible to say, ‘in actual.’ But she had a habit of saying ‘in actual’ and used it all the time. None of the American soldiers complained, because they understood what she wanted to say. She got by, you see? That’s why I thought I should be able to interpret as well.

Nineteen year-old Muramatsu thought ‘it’s a cool job that paid well,’ and decided to file a request to his superior to transfer him to interpreting work. He read a book on ‘how to succeed in business,’ which was in the library opened by GHQ’s Civil Information and Education Section, in Hibiya, and learned a strategy to ‘appeal to the interests of your employers.’ The letter he wrote used official phrasing he had learned, ‘the undersigned’: ‘It will be in the interests of the United States Occupation to give the undersigned an opportunity to prove his potential ability as an interpreter […]’ (Muramatsu 1978: 9). Muramatsu was ‘prepared to be fired,’ afraid they might tell him he was being ‘presumptuous,’ but he decided to take the risk: My boss – he was Director of the Welfare Department in Oakland County, Maryland, a very gentle man from the countryside. He did not so much as smile from under his thick glasses that looked like the bottom of a Coke bottle, and just said to me, ‘Muramatsu.’ […] He looked me in the eye and said, ‘So, you wanna be an interpreter?’ ‘Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Stemple,’ I said it nice and clear. And he said, ‘All right. You are an interpreter.’

The very next day, Muramatsu visited Saitama Prefectural Government in Urawa with a senior interpreter, the woman who always said ‘in actual’:


I first observed her interpreting, and the thing is, if you get a pain in your stomach at this point and think, ‘No way can I handle this,’ you are no good. I thought, ‘Hmm, I should be able to handle this.’ It’s called the power of positive thinking.

The following day, Muramatsu was assigned to interpret for a Japanese-American named George Hoshino and accompany him on what they called field trips, about three days a week, to Chiba, Saitama, Ibaraki, Shizuoka and Nagano. Without any training whatsoever, young Muramatsu started his interpreting for lectures and discussion sessions at municipal offices in different cities and towns in Kanto region, making mistakes or at times faking his way through. One time, Muramatsu remembers, in a two-hour lecture, the word ‘agenda’ appeared many times: I didn’t know the word ‘agenda.’ I knew the word ‘gender,’ though. […] So I wondered why the speaker was talking about sex. But the thing is, and this is very important – you must always translate things in context. The topic about sex was not in the least in the context, so I never uttered a word ‘sei (sex or gender).’ Every time the word came up, I said various things, trying to make the story make sense.

Muramatsu wrote in his memoir how his boss, who later became professor of sociology at Minnesota State University, looked at him incredulously when he asked, ‘By the way, what do you mean by gender?’ (Muramatsu 1978: 10). This was in 1949, and Muramatsu was 19 years old. After Muramatsu had been working as an interpreter for 7 or 8 months, the Korean War broke out, and at one point it seemed like ‘We were all going to be laid off.’ However, because of the Korean War, in Muramatsu’s recollection, the National Police Reserve, the predecessor of the Self Defense Forces, was being developed and the group that had been controlling the Japanese local administration shifted its role to a military advisory group. Under such circumstances, Muramatsu was asked, ‘We need a competent clerk with experience. Why don’t you stay on?’ which he accepted gladly. As a chief clerk for the personnel section, meticulous Muramatsu read Military Correspondence Manual thoroughly and memorized writing formats, including military deployment and transfer orders. Soon he knew more about military writing style than anybody else and they all came to him with questions. Then Muramatsu’s superior, a major and a military advisor, asked him if he was interested in becoming his interpreter. Muramatsu thanked him and started immediately, leaving administrative work again. Having been involved in administrative work proved an advantage, since by then Muramatsu was quite

89


knowledgeable about the U.S. Army and Japan’s precursor of the Self Defense Forces, which helped a great deal in his interpreting. Muramatsu remembers the leaders of the Japanese National Police Reserve at the time clearly: […] they would have been equivalent to officers in the U.S. Army, but the word ‘commissioned officer’ was not used [in Japan] then. In the beginning, the prewar officers were not hired. However, they were short on manpower, and so they lifted the ban on hiring former officers, which led lieutenants or majors from the pre-war Imperial Japanese Army to come back to join the Reserve. They were all extremely courteous toward the commissioned officers of the U.S. Army – the commissioned officers of the country that had won the war. It was different from how Iraq is today. They were showing respect toward the victors, who were also extremely gentlemanly and wanted to help Japan.

These aged officers used archaic words and expressions, and Muramatsu tried hard to translate them into English: There was no such thing as simultaneous interpreting back then, so it was consecutive. ‘That’s toki-no-ujigami,’ they would say. I thought, ‘Toki-no-ujigami?’ ‘How do you say toki-no-ujigami in English?’ they would ask me. I managed to answer, ‘God of time,’ the only thing I could think of. I explained that it refers to the time when God appears, just at the right time. That wasn’t really a mistranslation. There were many instances like this, and as such I accumulated quite a lot of interpreting experience.

The first time Nishiyama saw and heard interpreting was when a noted American scholar in electrical engineering named Dr. Irving Langmiur of General Electric was invited to lecture in Japan: I went to listen to this lecture and saw one Japanese person interpreting for Dr. Langmiur. It was of course consecutive interpreting. So I listened carefully. Naturally I understood what the scholar was saying without translation, but the interpreter was doing an admirable job of interpreting in sophisticated Japanese. I thought, ‘Oh, interpreting is done in such an admirable way.’ It was my first time to actually see what interpreting was all about.

At the Electrotechnical Laboratory where he worked, Nishiyama was asked to interpret once or twice, when foreigners visited the institute and engineers in charge showed them around. Nishiyama only remembers these occasions vaguely but he is sure he ‘did it in an amateurish way.’


It was not until after the war that Nishiyama started to do ‘real interpreting’: When the war ended, which means when the Emperor’s message was broadcast on August 15th, we…we were called ‘kanri’ (government officials) then, and all of us civil servants received an instruction. The instruction said, ‘The Occupation Forces would be coming. When they come, you are to wholly cooperate with the Occupation Forces.’ That’s what we were told. The way I received this instruction was not in writing but in verbal form. So when the Occupation Forces came, found out that I spoke English, and asked me to come and help, I couldn’t say no.

It all started in September, the month after the war ended. Nishiyama went to the laboratory and was told that an engineer, Mr. Ishikawa, had been summoned to GHQ to explain his research during the war, but they were having problems communicating, and he was asked, ‘Will you go and help?’ Nishiyama took the train and went to the Mitsubishi Building in Marunouchi, then used for the Far East Air Force: I found a colonel and an officer of the Far East Air Force, and Mr. Ishikawa was there with them. So I approached them and said, naturally in English, ‘I understand you’re having trouble with language. Perhaps I can help you?’ That’s what I said, and they responded, ‘Oh, good!’ And they said, ‘Mr. Ishikawa is trying to explain what he’s done. We can’t quite understand….’ As it happened, I knew what Mr. Ishikawa’s research was about. So I explained, ‘Ah, this is such and such,’ writing on a blackboard. And they responded, ‘Oh, now we understand. Thank you very much.’ Then, the colonel in charge said, ‘Thank you very much Mr. Ishikawa. You may leave now,’ and continued, ‘Mr. Nishiyama, would you mind staying behind?’

The colonel told Nishiyama, ‘Actually our mission is to investigate Japanese research efforts carried out during the war, in the field of communication. Will you help us?’ With the order given by the Japanese government to comply and cooperate with the Allied Forces, he couldn’t possibly say no: So I answered, ‘Oh I see. Well if that’s the case,’ and then returned to the laboratory and told the director, ‘Actually, I was asked to do such and such.’ The director replied, ‘Oh, I see. If that’s the case, you must go….’ So I took a temporary leave of absence… they told me my position would still be there and allowed me to be on leave…and thus, I started to work for the Occupation Forces. If you worked for the Occupation Forces, there was a budget for post-war management at that time, and my salary came from there. I ended up staying at GHQ for about 5 years.

Ever since then, more than half of Nishiyama’s workload was interpreting, the remaining half writing drafts for various reports, which meant he had to do

91

92


interpreting ‘every single day.’ It was all consecutive interpreting at first, and not k nowing note- taking techniques, what Nishiyama did was ‘to try to drum the content into my head to remember, retain it, and then reproduce it.’ With the aim of restoring Japan, GHQ invited engineers from places such as Bell Laboratory in the U.S., who worked closely with Japanese engineers in the Ministry of Communications, as it was called then. Nishiyama did interpreting for their communication, which was mostly technical. Nishiyama’s self-taught way of interpreting consecutively without taking notes sometimes presented problems, especially when ‘a speaker got carried away and talked too long,’ making it difficult for the interpreter to remember everything. Oftentimes, he would add later what he omitted in his interpreting: They told me later, ‘Nishiyama-san, we were so impressed. We thought you forgot, but you managed to add it later.’ It was nothing but an amateur doing what’s called in English ‘on-the-job training.’ It was training yourself doing actual work.

Gradually, however, Nishiyama became better in doing interpreting without taking notes, which in retrospect provided him good training for very basic simultaneous interpreting. Around that time, the United Nations was inaugurated and the news of simultaneous interpreters working in booths was reported in newspapers. Some Americans said, ‘Hey, the United Nations has started something called simultaneous interpreting. Nishiyama, why don’t you give it a try?’ To this, Nishiyama replied, ‘That’s impossible,’ and explained, ‘In the first place, the word order of English and Japanese is exactly opposite. It just can’t be done.’ Although by this time, simultaneous interpreting had been used at the Nuremberg Trials, it was not yet common, and it was generally considered impossible between languages as distant as Japanese and English. Although Nishiyama was ‘convinced simultaneous interpreting is impossible’ and although ‘Everybody said it was impossible,’ as he interpreted daily, he started a rudimentary simultaneous mode on his own: […] let’s say there were five or six officials present for the Japanese side. There were one or two Americans from the Occupation Forces or GHQ. Then what happens is, I interpret what the American said into Japanese and that is fine. This American would take it for granted that he’d have to wait for my translation. But when one Japanese person speaks, the rest of the Japanese have to wait while I interpret it into English. These people are busy doing their work day and night, and they come to these meetings. So I thought this was a waste of time for them to have to listen to my consecutive interpreting. I felt guilty for wasting their time. I wanted to do something about it, so initially, I tried to interpret as fast as I could…by speaking rapidly. And one day, after I spoke miles-a-minute, someone


said, ‘Nishiyama-san, if you talk that fast it’s difficult for me to understand. Will you speak a little more slowly?’ I was speaking that fast. To save time. Well, I did make these kinds of mistakes.

Nishiyama pondered how to save time in his interpreting without speaking fast, and then he noticed when a Japanese person speaks, there is usually an introduction. Even in one sentence, an introductory part comes first. Nishiyama realized that when he heard and understood the introduction, he had an urge to at least interpret that part in English. Therefore, as soon as he heard the beginning, Nishiyama would whisper the translation of the introduction into English, while the rest of the sentence continued: The verb appears at the very end in Japanese, and it determines the meaning, and so I would wait for this verb to show up, working on the sentence structure in English, and when it does, I would throw it in. I would wait a short while for the speaker to begin, and then start to talk. When the speaker finishes, I would finish just moments after the speaker finishes. This I was able to accomplish eventually.

Nishiyama realized that this is basically what simultaneous interpreting was all about. As he continued to try this new technique, he began to understand the basic principle of interpreting: We are not translating language or words. What the speaker is trying to convey with words is ‘information.’ As long as we perceive and understand this information, all we have to do is simply say it in English, because Japanese and English languages are not related at all anyway. And where important verbs are used, you would of course recognize them and use corresponding verbs accordingly. But the main thing is, information should be expressed in another language, and that’s interpreting, I came to perceive. I didn’t have any teachers so I learned that through experience alone. And I became able to do simultaneous interpreting from Japanese to English, first. In time, I learned how to do simultaneous interpreting from English to Japanese also. It must have been around 1951, when I learned to do this.

Nishiyama devised his own way of simultaneous interpreting on the job. And there was another person who learned to do this. It was Sohma Yukika: Yukika and I are on a first name basis, calling each other ‘Yukika’ and ‘Sen.’ We’re interpreting buddies. We probably were the first ones capable of doing simultaneous interpreting between Japanese and English. There might have been other people in, say, Kansai or elsewhere, but as far as I know, we were the first ones. That was about 1950 or 51.

93


4.2

Moral Re-Armament

Sohma Yukika vividly remembers her first attempt at simultaneous interpreting at a MRA (Moral Re-Armament)54 world conference in Caux, Switzerland, in 1950 with Nishiyama: So Nishiyama Sen and I just happened to be working together at this conference, and while interpreting, we quarreled. Sen would say, ‘You are going fast. Too fast!’ I replied, ‘What’s wrong with translating fast?’ and we quarreled. But in the end, it automatically became simultaneous.

Japan was invited to this MRA conference, with the aim of bringing it back to the international community. Over 70 Japanese participated, including politicians, business people, labor union leaders, and the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sohma and Nishiyama were interpreters for the Japanese delegation. Actually, Sohma is the only one among the five pioneers who experienced ad hoc interpreting before the war. It was in 1931, the year she graduated from Gakushuin Girls School in March. Sohma wanted to pursue her study, but ‘universities would not accept women back then,’ and yet she ‘had no interest in entering a women’s college.’ Her father then said, ‘Studying is something you should continue throughout your lifetime, and school is not the only place to learn. You’ll learn much more studying with me.’ Thus, in October, when Ozaki Yukio was invited to speak in New York, Sohma accompanied her father and acted as his interpreter. Sohma admits, however, that since her father didn’t have any trouble with English he didn’t need an interpreter and that she ‘merely acted as his ears,’ translating English into Japanese when her father couldn’t hear the questions from the floor. It was rather an informal duty. Sohma’s introduction to simultaneous interpreting was when she and her husband attended the first post-war MRA world conference held in Los Angeles in 1948. MRA55 was started by Frank Buchman, an American Lutheran minister of Swiss ancestry born in 1878. In the 1920s, Buchman’s ideas to build a just society took root at Oxford and in some American universities. As war in Europe loomed in the summer of 1938, Buchman issued a world-wide call for moral and spiritual re-armament, and Moral Re-Armament (MRA) was publicly launched in Europe and North America.

54. MRA (Moral Re-Armament) changed its name to Initiatives of Change in 2001, and Sohma is Honorary President of its Japan branch. 55. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://www.uk.initiativesofchange.org/.


Believing that lasting world peace could only be established on the basis of a change in personal and public relationships, MRA opened an international conference center in 1946 in Caux, Switzerland, where more than 3,000 Germans and 2,000 French were invited, and their encounters became the basis of a massive development in reconciliation and reconstruction.The conferences at Caux, and similar ones at Mackinac Island in the U.S., contributed further in post-war years to the reconciliation of Japan with her South-East Asian neighbours. After the conference in Los Angeles, the Sohmas went to MRA on Mackinac Island and then on to MRA international conference center in Caux, Switzerland. There were two things that impressed Sohma. She vividly remembers how surprised she was to find that European conference interpreters were so professional that they made you ‘feel as if the speaker is talking to you in that language,’ and she became convinced then that ‘this is how interpreting should be done.’ Another thing Sohma learned was: In the U.S. people apologized to us, ‘We are so sorry for dropping atomic bombs,’ and I would be listening with an arrogant expression on my face, as if to say, ‘Yes, you should be sorry.’ […] So, I went to Switzerland. When I arrived in Switzerland, there were people who could not stand to be in the same room with Japanese. I was shocked. […] Why? Why do they hate us so much? I wondered. I asked people, read books, and little by little, I learned what Japan did during the war…I had no idea. You see, I thought Japan was only fighting against the United States. I was so shocked to find out about all the things Japan did in Asia and other places, about the Netherlands, and Australia…I was flabbergasted. I was overwhelmed. That was a real eye-opener. I felt ashamed that I had no friends in Asia until then. And that was when I started to think about Asia. I was really astonished.

Her trip to the U.S. and Switzerland in 1948 in a way laid the foundation for her later career and vocation – diplomatic interpreting as ‘calling’ (see Chapter 5) and volunteer work for Asia, including her work to help refugees.56 After she came back to Japan from this trip, she acted as an interpreter for MRA representatives and met Ichimada Hisato, then the president of the Bank of Japan, several times, and although she was terrified of the way Ichimada behaved toward her interpreting, looking up at the ceiling whenever he became bored with the talk (see Chapter 5), she never gave up interpreting and continued to work on improving her interpreting. Her field was mostly meetings of Japanese Diet members: ‘there weren’t too many interpreters those days in Japan. So I did most

56. Sohma initiated and became president of an NGO to help refugees: Nanmin wo Tasukeru Kai (AAR=Association for Aid and Relief, Japan).

95


of the interpreting for Diet members at various meetings. I don’t know what Sen [Nishiyama] was doing at that time, but I did a lot of interpreting those days. […] I learned a lot. It was hard, though.’ Sohma reiterated, ‘I do not see myself as an interpreter,’ because she never studied English formally and never received interpreter training. However, she strongly believed that ‘Interpreting is something that comes to you naturally, as long as you have this wish or feeling to make the other party understand what is being said’ and thus Sohma continued her calling – interpreting.

4.3

Productivity teams

In the fall of 1955, the United States Department of State, in collaboration with the Japan Productivity Center, created under the leadership of Goshi Kohei, recruited prospective interpreters who would accompany missions from Japan to study industry and business in the United States. The program was designed to help Japan rebuild the nation after the devastation of war, and it was considered necessary to train escort interpreters for this purpose. Muramatsu was one of the first-year people chosen, and Kunihiro joined the following year, with younger Komatsu participating a few years later. Muramatsu spent a total of six and a half years with the Occupation Forces, with a variety of work from typist, clerk to interpreter, when one day he heard the U.S. Department of State was recruiting ‘simultaneous interpreters.’ It was the first time he had ever heard the term ‘simultaneous interpreters’ and he didn’t know what it meant, but Muramatsu decided to give it a try. The test was conducted at Mantetsu Building in Toranomon, which used to house an annex of the American Embassy. There were two examiners, Mrs. Nora Lejins, director of the languages section at the State Department and Mr.Yoshioka, an old second generation Japanese-American. Muramatsu remembers that ‘there was a box this big, so big that you cannot even imagine what it’s like today.’ It was a tape-recorder, with ‘a huge ring,’ a reel with the diameter of ‘about 10 or 15 cm,’ Muramatsu had heard that wire recorders were used during the Nuremberg Trials, but the test took place ‘shortly after magnetic tapes were invented.’ Muramatsu recalls they made him try simultaneous interpreting, on the spot, without any prior warning: The tape was spinning slowly. The examiner said, ‘This is President Eisenhower’s message to the Congress, about education.’ I had huge headphones on. ‘Interpret this message into the microphone in front of you.’ I said, ‘What?’ and was told, ‘Just keep interpreting what you hear into Japanese.’ I only interpreted from English into Japanese. There was no Japanese into English.


I was astonished at what I had to do. Having to speak in Japanese the minute I hear something. But I have always been talkative since my childhood, so I was quick in bringing out the words as I heard them. When I look back, I’m quite impressed how I wasn’t really talking nonsense. I still remember some of the words well, like education, teachers, and shortage of qualified teachers. ‘Ah!’ I thought. ‘In order for the U.S. to thrive in the future, it is vital to train qualified…I thought I probably shouldn’t use the word sensei (teacher) and use more formal kyoshi instead…educators.’ Instead of saying that it was daiji (important), in a colloquial way, I used a more formal word kanyo (vital). In any event, I kept talking the whole time.

The examiner told him much later, ‘Muramatsu, the reason you passed was because you didn’t stop, not even once. You just continued to speak the whole time.’ He also said, ‘You skipped some parts and there were some mistakes, but you never missed the main idea.’ It was not difficult for Muramatsu to get the main idea of the speech, because the President would ‘never say that educators are unnecessary for the future’ and ‘as long as you listen with this in mind, you can follow the logic. You use the words you understood as clues to infer the parts you couldn’t get, using your imagination, and you will be sure not to be so far off.’ After approximately five minutes of this ‘test’ of simultaneous interpreting, Muramatsu was exhausted and was convinced that it was in no way natural for a human being to listen and speak at the same time. However, just before Christmas that year, he was notified that he was selected as one of the eight chosen interpreters. And Muramatsu left Japan in February of 1956. Officially, these interpreters were hired by the Japan Productivity Center, but in practice, they worked as members of the International Cooperation Administration of the U.S. Department of State on a two-year contract. Their job was to accompany productivity study teams from Japan, invited to the U.S. as part of American technical assistance to Japan. The interpreters were paid 8 dollars per day and 12 dollars per diem on the road, considerably low by American minimum wage standards of one dollar an hour those days (Muramatsu 1978: 15–17). They escorted about six 6-week study tours a year and Muramatsu remembers he covered 45 states when there were only 48 states in the United States. Pulitzer Prize-winning David Halberstam wrote about these productivity teams in his 1986 bestseller The Reckoning on the economic wars between Ford Motor Company and Japan’s Nissan, introducing Muramatsu as ‘interpreter Masami Muramatsu’: […]Meanwhile, hundreds of Japanese productivity teams were landing in America, endlessly touring American factories. They came in groups, and to the Americans watching them they often seemed comical little men. They were all the same

97


height, and they wore the same blue suit, and they carried the same camera. They measured, they photographed, they sketched, and they tape-recorded everything they could. Their questions were precise. They were surprised how open the Americans were – open as they might not have been for, say, English or West German visitors. The truth was, there was a certain condescension in all this; the Americans were open because they never took these odd little Asians seriously. They were prejudiced and generous. The Japanese exploited this prejudice skillfully, playing the role to the hilt. It was, said Masami Muramatsu, an interpreter who accompanied many of these teams, almost embarrassing the way they poor-mouthed, becoming ever more humble as they dealt with Americans. We are the poor little Japanese, they would say, we have been devastated, you are very rich and generous, and we have come to learn everything we can. The Americans, he suspected, had obviously liked their complementary role of bountiful benefactor. Their lectures were a commercial extension of the American missionary spirit. In the beginning the Japanese were staggered by America, the ease, indeed eagerness, with which Americans talked to strangers, about professional matters but also about personal things. Why, the travelers would tell their friends upon their return, the Americans wanted to show visiting Japanese not just their houses, but their bedrooms! The Americans were proud and confident in those days, and somehow innocent. Their own world was so complete that they did not really need to think of any world outside it. The American market was quite sufficient for most American managers. The visiting Japanese productivity teams were potential customers as well as students, but the major American companies never seemed very interested in talking to them about exporting – neither about selling them a main product line nor about customizing a particular product to make it suitable for Japan. There was an unusual pride to the Americans then, Muramatsu thought, a pride that was attractive in its generosity of spirit but flawed by self-satisfaction. The Americans were powerful, they were rich, they were helping their former adversaries; but they did not need to look beyond their own coasts, and they did not need to learn. (311–312, emphasis added)

When Kunihiro applied for the same position the following year, the test was conducted at Waseda University Okuma Auditorium in Tokyo, and the place was packed with thousands of applicants. Both Kunihiro and Muramatsu testify that the compensation for the work wasn’t much, just ‘enough to put food on the table.’ Also back then, the term ‘simultaneous interpreting’ was not a household word. The general reaction was, ‘Simultaneous interpreting? What’s that?’ And yet people flocked to take the test. Kunihiro attributes the big turnout to three factors. In the first place, they all wanted to ‘go to the United States. In those days, it was still a big deal to go to the U.S. Still a big thing. Added to that, you would be able to travel around the United States.’ Another thing people might have considered was


a chance this job offered to meet and work closely with influential people from different sectors in Japan, such as leaders from the business community, labor unions, academic fields. The third reason was an added benefit that they would be able to learn the skills for a new type of job – interpreting. Kunihiro concludes, ‘So, for all these reasons, a throng of people wanted to go. I applied and luckily got accepted.’ Kunihiro testifies to what Halberstam wrote about American hosts being open was true: The U.S. in those days was really accommodating and generous. […] The United States was really an amazing country back then. They were ready to show us everything, ‘Let us show you everything. Please look at anything, anything you like.’ That was the kind of America we saw then. Good old days in the U.S.

Regarding the training at the U.S. State Department, Muramatsu commented that as far as consecutive interpreting was concerned, ‘there was nothing new’ for him to learn. As for simultaneous interpreting, ‘there was no one to teach us. There was one person who was kind of like a teacher, but frankly speaking, he didn’t have much simultaneous interpreting experience. He just happened to be there before us.’ There was, however, an American, most likely born in Europe, who was a veteran simultaneous interpreter between French and English, and he talked about his own diplomatic interpreting experiences, which Muramatsu found useful: ‘I still remember clearly…the way he was speaking in front of the four of us was already a speech in itself. I remember being impressed as I listened. He told us how we shouldn’t panic, for example.’ There was another person who gave lectures on American history, geography and politics, which proved to be helpful. According to Kunihiro, the U.S. Department of State was not quite ready to do any decent training in the first year, but they needed people, and so they recruited those who already had interpreting experience, such as Muramatsu. By the time the second-year group arrived, the Department of State was relatively ready with an interpreter-training institute they had created in European languages. However, for interpreting between Japanese and English, especially simultaneous interpreting, it was not yet a full-fledged training program, and Kunihiro comments it was ‘more like we all helped to create one.’ Although they had interpreting booths for training, and there were two instructors, Aoyama Seiji, a graduate of Kyoto University studying in the States, and James Wickel, a native speaker of English, neither of them functioned as ‘instructors.’ Aoyama was neither a professional interpreter nor a specialist in interpreter training, and Wickel was a new member for the program who was studying Japanese. He would ask the group questions about the Japanese language, and they in

99


turn would ask him questions about English. Kunihiro contends that their relationship was more of ‘colleagues’ or ‘equal partners,’ and they ‘worked together to set up the program.’ They knew the University of Geneva or Georgetown University offered courses in conference interpreting at the postgraduate level, but ‘this didn’t affect our training. What they were doing in Switzerland or at Georgetown didn’t have a direct bearing on us. We were right in Washington DC, where Georgetown University is, but we never went there for training or anything.’ Consequently, Kunihiro and the group were obliged to work without any training and it was ‘more like we were thrown into a swimming pool together and as we gasped for air, we all learned to swim out of necessity.’ Kunihiro recalls that the basic assumption in those days was, there was no way simultaneous interpreting could be done between Japanese and English, with the difference in syntax so large, especially in the word order. Kunihiro remembers he said that himself, ‘There’s no way you can do it.’ However, the reality was they had no choice but to give it a try. They had to go out on field trips with the productivity teams. They carried mobile equipment for simultaneous interpreting on a six-week tour, with a week in Washington DC to study the basics, and five weeks on the road, before coming back to Washington DC for a wrap-up session. Kunihiro, therefore, considers himself a ‘self-made carpenter.’ Since he is ‘a carpenter who learned his trade on the job,’ Kunihiro makes it a point to say, ‘Please don’t ask me about theories,’ and explains: A ‘self-made carpenter,’ – you know, a carpenter who learned from scratch, worked hard and finally became a professional, all on the job. I think you can call this a ‘self-made carpenter.’ I’d have to say, ‘Please don’t expect a self-made carpenter to give a lecture on the theory of architecture. I can’t do that.’ I clearly say that I cannot do it.

Muramatsu feels interpreting on the job, or ‘in the field,’ proved to be extremely useful, ‘one thing the young interpreters of today absolutely lack.’ One example he gave was presentation skills he learned: For instance, it could be at a civil engineering construction site, or at a place surrounded by noisy machines, where you have to interpret in a LOUD VOICE. […] we used to battle the noises, making sure we uttered no unnecessary words, in order to make ourselves heard among twelve people who were scattered about. […] If you speak loudly, you naturally try abdominal breathing to save your voice, and you cannot afford to say anything unnecessary. It’s when you speak softly that you begin to utter, ‘Um…’ or ‘Well…’

Chapter 4. Into the field of interpreting 101

Muramatsu also learned to speak with ‘articulation and enunciation, with ma (pause) just before crucial points, which helps make the meaning clear to listeners.’ Muramatsu summarizes that on the job interpreting experiences became wonderful opportunities for public speaking training. For Kunihiro, what made their interpreting task even more daunting was that these productivity teams came from all sorts of different fields that ‘encompassed virtually all topics in the universe.’ As an example, Kunihiro cited a plastics molding team he accompanied: I mean, plastic! To start with, I am not good at chemistry, in other words, natural science, any kind of natural science. But I had to try my best…furthermore, I had to listen to this in English, naturally. That is to say, I had to understand what manufacturing plastics was all about – the content. What I mean by ‘koto (content)’ and ‘kotoba (words)’ is that, if I don’t know the content, it is impossible to understand words.

What was worse for Kunihiro was vsiting 35 or 36 mines all over the U.S.: ‘I couldn’t see a thing below. Total darkness. I would clamber down, trembling, into these places…I had to do this countless times, in these coal mines. What’s more, I had to listen to the explanations given by local coal mine specialists or mine excavators and interpret what they said. I hated coal mines.’ However, Kunihiro recalls they didn’t have much choice: ‘We took turns and it was like, “Okay, next. Okay, you go.” […] The easiest was when we accompanied top management. Top business leaders, such as Ishizaka Taizo57-san, came.’ Komatsu was in his senior year when he applied to become an interpreter for the productivity study mission, known as the ‘Kentoshi58 of the Showa era.’ He had already started working for a company after graduation, and he took a two-year leave of absence to go to the U.S. He was 23 when he left Japan. His initial plan was to return to the company after two years, which he never did, because ‘after I moved over there, I realized it was a lot more fun, so I quit.’ He stayed in the United States for five and a half years, making America his second home. Komatsu admits that his primary motivation in applying was ‘to go to the U.S. rather than to become an interpreter’ and that ‘All I wanted to do was to go to the United States’ (see Chapter 3). He passed the screening, in which he was tested for his interpreting skills: 57. Ishizaka Taizo (1886–1975) is a successful business manager, known for his strong leadership as president of Keidanren (Federation of Economic Organizations) for 12 years and was called ‘the prime minister of business community.’ He became the first president of the Japan Productivity Center in 1955. 58. Kentoshi is the ancient Japanese missions to Tang Dynasty China.


I remember…we recorded our interpreting onto a disc. There was a short interview in English first, and then our interpreting from both English into Japanese and from Japanese into English were recorded on a disc. I was able to do this because I had done quite a lot of interpreting for the Gensuikyo during college. So in that sense, I suppose I did have some experience as an interpreter.

When Komatsu went to the State Department, someone who couldn’t speak Japanese was in charge of training, which was mainly ‘reproduction’ – listen to a passage and reproduce exactly the same thing, preferably with the same words and phrases, and Komatsu claims that was all he did: Reproduction. That’s all we did. […] Yes, that was all we did. We received no other training, that’s for sure. […] I never received any training that you could consider to be proper. I don’t think anyone did…I think it was the same with Kunihiro-san and Muramatsu-san. There was no special system for us to receive training after we went there. So, that’s all we did in terms of training.

After doing nothing but reproduction for three or four days, Komatsu was sent out into the field to work. Komatsu concludes that it was ‘on the job training,’ in the true sense of the term, but he managed: Well, somehow, I was able to interpret from English into Japanese even from the beginning, when I was interpreting for the Japan Productivity Center or the Department of State. It was field trips – we went out into the field, learned about the subject matter there, then moved to a room and heard more explanation from the American side, and that’s what we interpreted. We did whispering, talking to a microphone, like this. However, in a strict sense, it was a little different from simultaneous interpreting for a conference. So, I remember myself as being able to do this type of simultaneous interpreting from the beginning. At the time, though, with the translation of Japanese into English, we did consecutive interpreting. The questions asked by Japanese people were translated consecutively. However, after a field trip, the study team would go to Washington DC to have what you call a wrap-up session, where the Japanese side gave feedback, impressions or comments to the U.S. side, and for this, we did simultaneous interpreting from Japanese into English. I remember I had a hard time trying to do it. With simultaneous interpreting from Japanese into English…well, everything was off the cuff, you see. We didn’t have any training, and whether we could or couldn’t do it was not an issue. We just had to do it. Well, I think that perhaps, that kind of situation worked to our advantage.

For Komatsu, interpreting from English to Japanese presented no problems from the beginning, whereas he remembers ‘always having trouble’ with interpreting from Japanese into English, and still considers interpreting from Japanese into English ‘a challenge.’


Kumihiro continued the work for seven years, from 1956 until 1962, accompanying the largest number of teams among his colleagues, because he volunteered to be assigned to agricultural productivity teams, with longer trips – eight weeks instead of six. Kunihiro was interested in agriculture and forestry and accompanied teams to study such matters as grain storage and fumigation, traveling to the South and studying American rice farming. Kunihiro concludes that his experience with productivity teams helped him understand the United States, in terms of both ‘koto (content)’ and ‘kotoba (language).’ All these things – it was tantamount to all the creations of the earth, if you will. I got to see all these ‘shinra bansho (creations of the universe)’ which took place in the United States, studying its diverse dimensions, in terms of both ‘kotoba (words)’ and ‘koto (content).’ […]So…when I came back to Japan, I said, ‘In a way, what I studied was a kind of, if you take an example of Yanagita Kunio-sensei’s ‘Nihon minzoku-gaku (ethnographic study of Japanese society),’ it would be an ethnographic study of American society. I studied that much by observations of diverse aspects of the United States. In terms of both ‘kotoba (words)’ and ‘koto (content).’

4.4

Japan-U.S. Ministerial Meetings on Trade and Economic Affairs

According to Nishiyama, the initial attempts to try conference interpreting were made in Japan at the first U.S.-Japan Joint Meeting on Trade and Economic Affairs, held in Hakone, November 1961. Then, at the second meeting, held in Washington DC, Muramatsu and Kunihiro, along with two people from the U.S. Department of State, offered full-fledged simultaneous interpreting. The U.S.-Japan Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs was initiated by President John F. Kennedy and Prime Minister Ikeda Hayato, who agreed to its creation to ‘forward economic integration through regular discussions among Japanese and American political and business leaders’ (Barnhart 2001: 207). As one of the interpreters hired by the American Embassy, Nishiyama recalls that although customarily in diplomatic negotiations, an interpreter hired by the Japanese government interprets what the Japanese delegate says into a foreign language, he was asked to do it, although technically he was hired by the American government: The Foreign Ministry would provide interpreting from English to Japanese. It was the other way around from the usual protocol. Completely the opposite… It was decided to do it that way with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The reason


for this decision was that the native language of those in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is Japanese, and although they are good at English, it is still a foreign language to them. As for me, although my mother tongue is Japanese, I use English just the same as a native language. So when we discussed the procedure with the Ministry, it was decided to depart from the usual procedure. That is why for this particular meeting, the Japanese side interpreted what the Americans said, and I interpreted what the Japanese said into English.

Since there were very few simultaneous interpreters then, they provided simultaneous interpreting for prepared texts only, and spontaneous discussions were interpreted consecutively. Nishiyama remembers that with any prepared text, he would ‘translate it beforehand, so it was not really simultaneous interpreting. It was voice-over, so to speak.’ Aside from the general assembly, Japanese cabinet ministers and U.S. department secretaries held individual one-on-one meetings. Each of these meetings had its own interpreters, and Nishiyama explains that ‘the people best in English interpreted Japanese into English, and the people best in Japanese interpreted from English into Japanese.’ While Kunihiro and Muramatsu were in the United States, the second JapanU.S. Ministerial Meeting on Trade and Economic Affairs was held in Washington DC, where officially simultaneous interpreting was used between Japanese and English. Minister of Foreign Affairs Ohira Masayoshi was the head of the delegation, the Minister of Finance then was Tanaka Kakuei, and the Director of the Economic Planning Agency was Miyazawa Kiichi, all of whom later became prime ministers. Kunihiro remembers hearing that the Japanese government objected to simultaneous interpreting, but that the Department of State, as a host, overruled that objection, insisting they could do it. There were four in the interpreting team. One was James Wickel, working on the American side. The others were Japanese: Muramatsu, Okamoto Yutaka, and Kunihiro. The Japan-U.S. Ministerial Conference was held just after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Kunihiro remembers two things. He recalls he was traveling with a productivity team in Florida, very close to Cuba, in the middle of the Cuban Crisis, He was convinced that a nuclear war would break out, and made an international call to his home in Tokyo, ‘to say sayonara.’ When this crisis was at last over, the Japan-U.S. Ministerial Meeting was held on ‘either the 3rd or 4th of December, in Washington DC. The meeting was successful with simultaneous interpreting. The United States was relieved, and Japan was even more relieved. Simultaneous interpreting was better than they had imagined’ and the Japanese delegation went to the White House to pay a courtesy call to President Kennedy. Both Muramatsu and Kunihiro accompanied the Japanese delegation, and were struck to see


‘frost-like dandruff in his hair,’ which made them think about ‘the weight of matters this man had to deal with’ in a crisis.

4.5

Discussion

One striking thing about the five pioneer interpreters is that none of them received any formal training. Even the three people who went to the U.S. Department of State all testify that they received only minimal and nominal training and it was more of training on the job in the field. This is understandable when you consider that interpreting as a profession was established only about a few decades ago, in the 1960s in Europe and well into the 1970s in Japan, the driving force for which was none other than these five pioneers. Although Sohma repeated that she did not see herself as an interpreter because she never received interpreter training, this is not a valid claim, since not one among the five received proper training. Muramatsu considers this an advantage, claiming that what today’s young interpreters lack is the kind of ‘on the job training’ in the field they received, not simply in terms of interpreting skills but in presentation skills as well. The experiences of the five interpreters as trainees, apprentices and novices in a way prove Gideon Toury’s claim that what trainees need is the opportunity to ‘abstract their own guiding principles and routines from actual instances of behaviour’ and ‘the pedagogically most appropriate key concepts are those associated with experiencing, exploration and discovery, involving as they do a considerable element of trial and error’ (1995: 256, emphasis in original). This, in a way, brings forth the issue of ‘aptitude’ – are interpreters simply born, rather than trained? Etilvia Arjona-Tseng59 told the audience when she was awarded Pierre François Caillé Memorial Medal:60 ‘30 some years ago, when I structured the Monterey program61 along professional lines, I would be publicly laughed at and ridiculed because “Professor Arjona, don’t you know that translators and interpreters are born – they are not taught.”’

59. Etilvia Arjona-Tseng is founder of graduate programs for interpreting and translation at a number of institutions worldwide, such as the Monterey Institute of Foreign Studies, Florida International University, Fu-Jen Catholic University in Taiwan and the University of Panama. 60. FIT XVII World Congress in Tampere, Finland, August 7, 2005. 61. Monterey Institute of Foreign Studies in California, USA. Their interpreting program celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2005.


Saito Mitsuko, a communication studies specialist, who started Japan’s first tertiary level training program for conference interpreting at International Christian University in the suburbs of Tokyo, strongly believed that anybody could become an interpreter with proper training. Muramatsu disagrees: ‘When it comes to aptitude, my view differs completely from that of Professor Saito Mitsuko, who insisted anyone could become an interpreter if you trained them. I don’t think that’s the case. To be frank, I think interpreting is 90 per cent aptitude, 10 per cent studying or luck.’ The issue, then, boils down to exactly what kind of elements constitutes the necessary aptitude for becoming an interpreter. Sohma wonders if maybe women are better suited for the job because ‘women talk more.’ Komatsu points out, however, that the popular notion that people who like to talk are suited for interpreting work is a myth, because he himself has always been reticent and not inclined to talk much. In the innateness discussion62 of a bilingual speaker becoming a translator performing what Brian Harris (1973) termed ‘natural translation,’ Toury considers innateness hypothesis not enough and contends: […]whereas the predisposition itself for translating is indeed ‘coextensive with bilingualism’, its emergence as a skill should be taken as coextensive with the ability to establish similarities and differences across languages, which may be termed ‘interlingualism’. The unfolding of this skill, in turn, hinges upon the presence of a kind of transfer mechanism, which makes it possible to actually activate one’s interlingual capacity and apply it to utterances in one or another of one’s languages. It stands to reason that these added capacities are inherently different in different people, part of different mental structures […] At the same time, these facilities seem to be trainable too, at least up to a point, a training which involves actual practice in translating in context, along with the reactions one may receive to one’s behaviour. (1995: 248, emphasis in original)

Toury’s notion of the making of a ‘native translator’ rests on his belief that emerging translators undergo ‘socialization as concerns translating,’ resulting in a ‘translator’s competence representing a characteristic blend of nature and nuture’ (ibid.: 250). This is documented by the testimony of pioneer interpreters in that although they might be naturally gifted to become interpreters, paritularly Sohma and Nishiyama as bilingual native interpreters, their competences were gradually nurtured and they became socialized as interpreters by various kinds of normative feedback.

62. See also Daniel Simeoni (1998) for his view of ‘internalization of outer norms’ (14).


Komatsu mentioned reproduction as virtually the only training he received at the Department of State, which is not exactly practice in translating but an activity to reproduce a story you hear as accurately as possible in the same language, perhaps designed to reinforce the trainees’ second language proficiency.This actually is a demanding task, making explicit the linguistic competence of a trainee in multiple facets, namely comprehension, expression, discourse competence, vocabulary, syntactic and grammatical accuracy, as well as phonology. An ordinary language learner of English in Japan usually finds reproduction in English an overwhelming challenge, or something way beyond their capacity, and even in advanced courses of English at college the activity runs the risk of discouraging students. In other words, trainees for conference interpreting have to be equipped with sufficient linguistic competence to enable them to cope with reproduction exercises. The author remembers the activity being used at the screening test to select trainees for conference interpreting, introduced to Japan by people involved in the State Department training, and felt it was an excellent way to judge an examinee’s production skills in a foreign language, if not a teaching method. At issue here is that skills in a foreign language, although certainly prerequisite for interpreting and translating, are not the same as interlingual capacity. To see what constitutes interpreting and translation competence, and decide what is teachable and trainable is not an easy task, involving pedagogy and assessment (see Saywer 2004). First, it is necessary to distinguish between the quality of translation and interpreting and translator’s performance, and the distinction must be made between translator’s linguistic competence and their cultural competence (Hatim and Mason 1997). Drawing on Bachman’s (1990) model of communicative competence,63 Hatim and Mason propose their model for translator abilities, consisting of a three-stage process: source-text processing, transfer, and target-text processing, which is further subdivided into relevant skills such as inferring intentionality in source-text processing and creating intentionality in target-text processing, the skills interacting with one another, and some processes occurring concurrently (1997: 205– 206). The overall premise in this model is many of the skills for interpreting and translation are teachable, trainable and testable. Not strictly an interpreting ability, and yet possibly related to aptitude for interpreters, which was pointed out by Komatsu explicitly, and which might apply to all five pioneers, is optimism and positive thinking. In Komatsu’s words, if 63. Bachman’s (1990) model of communicative competence consists of (1) organizational competence (grammatical and textual); (2) pragmatic competence (illocutionary and sociolinguistic); (3) strategic competence (judging relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, and forming plans for the achievement of communicative goals).


you are disappointed easily by failures, this means you are not suited to becoming an interpreter. Komatsu mentioned this when he was talking about the times ‘when things didn’t go well and I was very disappointed or embarrassed,’ and one time he left a meeting as soon as it was over, not wanting to see anyone, but he never thought of giving up the interpreting profession and the mistakes he made resulted in his ‘determination to strive to become better.’ Although not all five presented specific cases of when and how they made mistakes, it would not be surprising to imagine they made at least some mistakes during their many years of interpreting. The fact that they did not remember too many mistakes in detail might suggest two things. For one, it could be a testimony to what Muramatsu and Komatsu said about the qualities needed to become an interpreter – positive thinking and optimism. Another possibility is the seasoned interpreters actually did not make too many errors because if you know the content well enough, you can ‘anticipate’ the message with logical reasoning, and it is not difficult to grasp the main idea. And this is something all five interpreters suggested one way or the other. Some expressed it as ‘information’ or ‘content’ and some others described it as ‘knowing the speaker’ or ‘context.’ As Kunihiro aptly suggested, if you do not know ‘koto (content),’ you cannot translate ‘kotoba (words).’ This is what Nord classifies as ‘factual and research competence’ (1991) in translators ability, which can be applied to interpreting as well. While many translators are unsure ‘whether translation is a trade, an art, a profession or a business’ (Baker 1992: 2), the interpreters in this study were clear in their understanding of their work – it was not a trade nor a business, but a ‘calling’ for Sohma, an art perhaps for Kunihiro and Nishiyama, and certainly a profession for all five. Whereas some talented translators ‘who have had no systematic training in translation but who have nevertheless achieved a high level of competence through long and varied experience tend to think that the translation community as a whole can achieve their own high standards in the same way’ and consider translation ‘an art which requires aptitude, practice, and general knowledge – nothing more’ (Baker 1992: 3), the ‘self-made carpenters’ in this study, although not entirely denying the place of aptitude as a gift, recognize the importance of formal training. Nishiyama, Muramatsu, Kunihiro and Komatsu were all involved in interpreter training, and Komatsu, a strong advocate of academic training, with theoretical components brought into practical training, continues his efforts in university interpreter training. Although Sohma does not teach herself, she brought up a daughter who became a conference interpreter and who runs an interpreter training school. Baker strongly argues that if translators wanted to remedy the unjustly low status of the profession:


[…] the translators need to develop an ability to stand back and reflect on what they do and how they do it. Like doctors and engineers, they have to prove to themselves as well as others that they are in control of what they do; that they do not just translate well because they have a ‘flair’ for translation, but rather because, like other professionals, they have made a conscious effort to understand various aspects of their work. Unlike medicine and engineering, translation is a very young discipline in academic terms. It is only just starting to feature as a subject of study in its own right, not yet in all but in an increasing number of universities and colleges around the world. Like any young discipline, it needs to draw on the findings and theories of other related disciplines in order to develop and formalize its own methods […]. (1992: 4)

In order for interpreters to become experts and professionals, they need to overcome intuitive practice, and to achieve this, one must acquire a sound knowledge of the material with which they work, to understand what language is and how it functions (Baker 1992: 4). For this purpose, interpreters will benefit from such disciplines as text linguistics, functional linguistics, pragmatics, linguistic anthropology, discourse analysis, sociology, and above all, intercultural communication. This remains a substantial task for present and future interpreters in Japan.

4.6

Conclusion

This chapter showed the trajectories of the five interpreters, each entering the field of interpreting in a different way and yet with some common experiences. One striking similarity among the pioneers was that none of them received systematic training and all were what Kunihiro called ‘self-made carpenters,’ precisely because they were pioneers. This might invoke the never-ending fundamental discussion about interpreters and translators – are they born or can they be made? Is the ability to translate and interpret a gift, and either you have or you do not? On the surface, the narratives of the five interpreters testify to the former, that the interpreters are born, not trained. And yet, with some closer look at the way they studied or acquired languages, and the way they learned the skills of interpreting, it becomes evident that the born linguists were not just born and enjoyed their innate abilities, but they made conscious efforts to learn languages and improve their linguistic competences. In addition, although at first, they might have been close to bilingual natural interpreters, even without formal training, they learned substantially from their on-the-job experiences, as well as from their colleagues and from the more experienced. In other words, the only thing they lacked was systematized education, which would be needed if we try to produce


a greater number of interpreters than simply a handful, and establish interpreting as a profession. The pioneers themselves, while admitting the strength of on-thejob training, are well aware of the need for more systematic and theory-oriented curriculum in interpreter pedagogy, so that the interpreting profession will enjoy the kind of recognition and respect that it deserves. The chapter on the five interpreters going into the field of interpreting will necessarily leads us onto the next step, the actual practice of interpreting. The practice by the five pioneer interpreters in various interpreting settings, with different agents in the communicative events, will be the topic of the next chapter.

chapter 5

Interpreting as a practice

Erving Goffman (1981: 131–146), in ‘giving credit to the autonomy of “a talk” as a unit of activity in its own right,’ proposes to examine the role or function of all the participating members of the social gathering in relation to their ‘participation status.’ The word ‘talk’ as used by Goffman includes not only conversation, but can take the form of ‘a platform monologue’ such as in the case of political addresses, stand-up comedy routines, lectures, dramatic recitations, and poetry readings. Within this ‘participation framework, the notion of a hearer starts with an official status as a ratified participant, which is further broken down into the ‘addressed’ and ‘unaddressed.’ At the same time, although not ‘ratified,’ equally important is purposeful ‘eavesdropper,’ unintentional ‘overhearer,’ and ‘bystander.’ Likewise, Goffman analyzes his notion of speaker in three different kinds of functions. In talk, ‘one of the two participants moves his lips up and down to the accompaniment of his own facial (and sometimes bodily) gesticulations, and words can be heard issuing from the locus of his mouth. He is the sounding box in use […]. In short, he is the talking machine, a body engaged in acoustic activity, or, if you will, an individual active in the role of utterance production.’ This function, in Goffman’s term, is an ‘animator.’ However, in using the term ‘speaker,’ we often think of ‘someone who has selected the sentiments that are being expressed and the words in which they are encoded,’ and this is the ‘author’ of the words that are heard. Moreover, a speaker is a ‘principal’ who is ‘someone whose position is established by the words that are spoken, someone whose beliefs have been told, someone who is committed to what the words say.’ Moreover, the same individual can ‘rapidly alter the social role in which he is active, even though his capacity as animator and author remains constant.’ Goffman likens this shift in the social role, or ‘footing,’ to ‘changing hats’ in committee meetings, acknowledging at the same time that these roles do have institutionalized exceptions such as reciting, and mentions simultaneous interpreting: We can openly speak for someone else and in someone else’s words, as we do, say, in a deposition or providing a simultaneous translation of a speech – the latter an interesting example because so often the original speaker’s words, although ones that person commits himself to, are ones that someone else wrote for him. (1981: 145–146, emphasis in original)


Goffman does not elaborate further on simultaneous translation, let alone the role of an interpreter in his participation framework, but states that the relation(s) among speaker, addressed recipient, and unaddressed recipient(s) are ‘complicated, significant, and not much explored’ (1981: 133). It is therefore worthwhile to explore the participation status of the interpreter. In doing so, we shall make the matter simple by assuming that the original speaker is speaking his own ideas, not something written for him. Even then, the communication becomes rather complex. Granted that the interpreter is a ‘ratified unaddressed recipient,’ does s/he function as an animator? Or, an author? Generally, people seem to think that an interpreter functions as an animator, a ‘sounding box’ or a ‘talkng machine’ to use Goffman’s terms (1981: 144), speaking the words uttered by someone else. This is not entirely deniable, since one thing that distinguishes a professional interpreter from an amateur is that an untrained lay or natural interpreter tends to interpret with expressions such as, ‘So and so says…’ or ‘According to so and so, it is…,’ speaking in the third person. By contrast, trained professionals invariably use the first person singular ‘I,’ the alien ‘I,’ for the speaker. In fact, this is one of the first things that are taught in interpreter training – you should put yourself in the speaker’s shoes and interpret as if the interlocutor’s thoughts are yours (e.g. Nishiyama 1979: 83). If, for example, an interpreter wants to correct a mistake made during interpreting, what should be said is, ‘The interpreter is sorry she made a mistake,’ for if she said, ‘I am sorry I’ve made a mistake,’ that would mean the original speaker has made a mistake. Consequently, when an interpreter is translating, you are not yourself any longer. When you utter the word ‘I’ or ‘my,’ you are not talking about your own self. Rather, you are talking about the person who happens to be talking at the time. An interpreter speaks on behalf of the speaker. In Goffman’s term, you are an ‘animator.’ Or, at least, you are supposed to, or expected to, function as such. Kunihiro claims that an interpreter is ‘not a robot, nor a machine’ (1969: 88), which many interpreters would agree with, but what about the function of ‘animator’? How do interpreters themselves perceive their roles as ‘speaker’ in their interpreting assignments? In Chapter 5, this question will be the underlying theme for the representative description of interpreting as a practice of each of the five interpreters, and their feelings about the interpreting profession. Specifically, Nishiyama’s case is analyzed in his relationship with his major client, Ambassador Reischauer, whom Nishiyama addresses as ‘sensei’ with great respect. The interpreting practice of Komatsu is studied in different situtations, such as a series of diplomatic negotiations for the return of Okinawa to Japan, in which Komatsu acted as ‘a visible machine’ to cite his own words. In the following section, a noted case of mistranslation is examined, with Muramatsu’s own account of his translation of Prime Minister Nakasone’s rhetoric as ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier,’ along

Chapter 5. Interpreting as a practice 113

with comments from people involved, such as the Washington Post reporter at that time and Nakasone Yasuhiro himself. As the first female simultaneous interpreter in Japan, Sohma’s narrative offers a unique case of interpreting practice as a ‘calling.’ Finally, Kunihiro’s case is analyzed, particularly his practice of what he calls ‘keren interpreting’ offering a non-traditional, non-normative view of interpreters.

5.1

Nishiyama and Reischauer-Sensei

When Nishiyama was working for Civil Communications Bureau at GHQ, there was one incident which made him angry. Japan drafted a telecommunications related bill, which was translated into English and submitted to GHQ. The intended procedure was to have it approved by the Occupation Forces, and then to propose it to the Diet. However, there was an American lawyer, who, for some reason, had complaints about it, and told the Japanese to revise it for resubmission: So, we revised it, and again, he would not accept it. I’ve forgotten what this lawyer said, but it was unreasonable. And then this Chief of Communications64 said, ‘I see,’ and he took the bill and ripped it up into shreds. That was his way of ‘tanka wo kiru,’ expressing his anger. In this case, there was no need for interpretation. He had demonstrated his way of ‘tanka wo kiru’ in the true sense of the word. As such, the meetings ended without reaching any agreement. Afterwards, since what the American lawyer argued, in my view, was unreasonable, not at all suitable for the situation in Japan…I’ve forgotten what exactly the thing was. Finally, I wrote a report on this, fully explaining why it failed. […] I was to be working for the American Embassy in a month. I was about to move when I wrote that memo, intentionally. I summed up everything that happened in my memo as my impression, and then said, ‘Sayonara.’ In a way, I did my own ‘tanka wo kiru.’ It was my way of expressing anger.

This episode was introduced when Nishiyama was recounting the story of Kono Ichiro and his tanka.

5.1.1 Kono Ichiro’s tanka During one of the discussion sessions at the first U.S.-Japan Ministerial Meeting on Trade and Economic Affairs, Nishiyama recalls that Kono Ichiro, then the Minister of Agriculture, made quite an aggressive statement, almost an ultimatum, to 64. The Chief of the Ministry of Communications, equivalent to the Minister of Communications.


U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Freeman. It was virtually ‘tanka wo kiru,’ a Japanese expression meaning to speak out with angry determination, ready to fight, almost issuing an ultimatum. Nishiyama explains that Kono did not use the term ‘tanka wo kiru,’ but what he said amounted to ‘tanka wo kiru’ which he did not perceive it as such at the time. Nishiyama explains: The topic, as I remember, was import and export of agricultural products. Up until that point, the Minister made jokes which left Secretary Freeman puzzled and the atmosphere was amicable. I interpreted Kono’s words into English using slang, to which the U.S. Secretary responded with big gestures, and the Minister of Agriculture seemed quite satisfied. This particular statement came up in the middle of such friendly situation, and I simply interpreted Mr.Kono’s ‘tanka’ in ordinary English. Thanks to my interpreting, Secretary Freeman had no idea that the Japanese Agriculture Minister said something aggressive in a ‘tanka wo kitta’65 manner, and simply gave an ordinary answer. Later, somebody in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said to me, ‘Mr.Kono, at that time, meant to tanka wo kiru and so he was somewhat dissatisfied with your interpretation.’ For the first time I realized it was meant to be a ‘tanka,’ and at the next meeting, I deeply apologized to Mr. Kono. (1970: 20–21)

Asked about this episode in the interview, Nishiyama replied that he did not recall the details, but that he believed he ‘summed up in English what Mr. Kono had said.’ It was only after the meeting, when others were saying how Kono’s remarks in Japanese were, in effect, ‘tanka wo kitta’ that he realized the Minister meant his statement to be angry: Torikai: So you did not see it as a ‘tanka wo kiru’ at that time? Nishiyama: I don’t think so. If I did, I would have approached it in that manner. […] I suppose it was not too clear to me. I believe the subject was regarding an importing issue of some agricultural product. Torikai: But if you had realized at that time, the words spoken were actually ‘tanka,’ as an interpreter, what do you think you would have done? Do you think you interpreted it that way even if you thought it might risk offending the American side? Nishiyama: It would have been inevitable. The reason is, if that is what the speaker intended, it is not the responsibility of the interpreter even if the listener became offended. Torikai: That’s for sure. Nishiyama: Sometimes, the interpreter is blamed for some talks that did not go well. The responsibility is placed on the interpreter whether he likes it or not.

65. The past tense of “tanka wo kiru.”


However, I say that it is the speaker who should take the responsibility, not the interpreter.

Nishiyama concludes the episode with comments on the need of what is close to a French word ‘rapport’ between a speaker and his interpreter: I felt strongly at that time, that communication between a speaker and an interpreter should not be just in language or words, but communication between hearts is necessary. Whether ‘tanka wo kiru’ in that situation is effective or not psychologically to an American is not something I should judge. As an interpreter, we have to understand the feelings of a speaker as if they are your own, and express the opinion in that feeling to the other party. (1970: 20–21, emphasis in original)

While Nishiyama remembers the episode well, he doesn’t regard this as a single most difficult case in his interpreting career. Rather, he recalls that occasions he encountered hardships while interpreting were when he interpreted for U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Edwin O. Reischauer.

5.1.2 Kakeai manzai with Ambassador Reischauer Nishiyama attributes the difficulties he encountered to his lack of knowledge, particularly in history: In my experience, there were no meetings that were too difficult for me to handle. Although, there were times, such as with Ambassador Reischauer, when I lacked the knowledge necessary to render accurate interpreting. As I mentioned earlier, I had barely passed my history classes, so I had little knowledge of history. And, the Ambassador was an internationally acknowledged scholar of history. He was especially well versed in Asian history.

Nishiyama’s first work with Reischauer was at a small meeting with journalists as a newly arrived U.S. Ambassador. Born and brought up in Tokyo until the age of 16, as a Presbyterian missionary’s son, the scholar-turned-diplomat was fluent in Japanese, but he made it a rule to speak in English officially as U.S. Ambassador. Nishiyama, who had already been working at the U.S. Embassy, interpreted Reischauer’s English into Japanese for the first time at the ambassador’s residence. Nishiyama ‘didn’t have any problems then, because the discussion was about U.S.Japan relations,’ and thus, he assumes that ‘as the Ambassador heard me interpret, he must have thought that I would be of use.’ From then on, Nishiyama became almost an exclusive interpreter for Ambassador Reischauer. His responsibilities at the U.S. Embassy included ‘being an


advisor, among other things, but whenever there was a lecture or a press conference, he would always ask for me.’ This, Nishiyama feels, was a great experience, although sometimes he made mistakes in his interpreing: At times, I would interpret what Ambassador Reischauer said into Japanese based on my own understanding, and he would say, ‘No, Sen, that isn’t quite what I meant.’ And I would ask, ‘Mr. Ambassador, what did you mean?’ and the Ambassador would explain to me, ‘I meant it this way.’ It was almost like a ‘kakeai manzai66 ‘(a stand-up comedy duo) act on stage. […] Then eventually I would tell him, ‘Oh, I see. Now I think I understand. Let me try it again,’ and speak in Japanese, and the Ambassador would listen and say, ‘That’s better.’ The audience would get a kick out of this and roar with laughter. It was just like ‘kakeai manzai.’ On stage. We did this many times.

Nisihyama narrated the story of how Reischauer used to correct his mistakes in front of the audience, as if it were something funny, describing it as ‘kakeai manzai.’ This, however, by no means is something commonly done. As a matter of fact, ordinary interpreters would resent this kind of embarrassment; their pride as a professional deeply hurt, losing face in front of an audience. Moreover, Nishiyama was no ordinary interpreter. Reischauer himself commented on Nishiyama’s outstanding interpreting in his diary. On February 15, 1962, Reischauer’s notes about the visit of Robert Kennedy, then U.S. Attorney General, to Waseda University, mentioned Nishiyama’s fluent interpreting of Kennedy’s spontaneous speech (2003: 68), and in his February 25, 1962 diary entry, Reischauer praised Nishiyama as his indispensable, fabulous interpreter (2003: 70). Nevertheless, at every lecture, Reischauer would correct Nishiyama’s interpreting at least two or three times on the spot, and afterwards apologize for ‘correcting him so many times’ (Nishiyama 1970: 25). An example would be when Reischauer corrected him and said, ‘No, it’s not exactly “soutou ookina sa” (a very big difference). It’s “kiwamete ookina sa” (quite a big difference)’ (Nishiyama 1979: 31). Nishiyama insists not only did he not mind this, but he felt more secure that way, because Reischauer’s corrections were all to do with his ‘misunderstanding the meaning or intention of what the Ambassador was trying to say’ (1970: 86). To some interpreters who dislike being corrected by the speaker, Nishiyama argues that such corrections are not to be feared, because they are not about interpreting per se – they should be considered as the correction on the comprehension of certain information. This exceptional tolerance seems to be based on the profound respect that Nishiyama held for Reischauer: 66. A “manzai” is a stand-up comedy, and a “kakeai manzai” is with a pair of comedians in a duo style.


The most admirable, or should I say, impressive about the Ambassador, was how stimulating his talks on history were. The history he spoke about was really the drama of people living in society. That is why it was so exciting. I was captivated by his stories. For the first time I thought history was fascinating and began to be interested.

As time went on, their relationship turned into a warm friendship. In Nisihyama’s words, ‘He made me his best friend, and treated me extremely well.’ One factor, it seems, that fostered such relationship is Nishiyama’s unending curiosity and willingness to learn something new: ‘I learned a great deal just by speaking with the Ambassador. I would often comment that a world-famous authority of history has given me free private lessons, and is even paying me. I must be the luckiest person in the world.’ Even today, Nishiyama is grateful for the way Reischauer explained history so that an engineer would easily understand and appreciate the study of history, and recalls that to him, Reischauer was more than a friend. To explain this feeling, Nishiyama talked about the form of address that bothered him for a long time: Nishiyama: […] Ambassador Reischauer considered me his friend, so whenever he wrote me, he would start off by addressing me as ‘Dear Sen,’ and he would sign his name as ‘Ed’ at the bottom. So it would be natural for me to call him Ed, but I just couldn’t do that. He was such a great scholar. And thanks to him, I became interested in things in the sociology field, and came to write books. […] That is why I feel always indebted to Ambassador Reischauer. And that is why I can never say, ‘Dear Ed.’ For the first couple of times, I wrote, ‘Dear Professor Reischauer,’ but he would always reply, ‘Dear Sen,’ and ‘Ed’. It seemed as if he were telling me, ‘Just call me Ed.’ But I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. On the other hand, ‘Professor Reischauer’ sounded much too formal. Torikai: So then, what did you do? Nishiyama: I suddenly found a solution. Right, I thought. From then on, I wrote, ‘Dear Sensei.’ I wrote this ‘sensei’ in the roman alphabet. Torikai: That is a wonderful idea. Nishiyama: From then on, whenever I saw Prof. Reischauer, I would say, ‘Hey, Sensei, Come over here.’ I always called him ‘Sensei’ since then. When you call somebody ‘sensei’ you sound friendly, and at the same time you can show your respect. In this sense, Japanese is more convenient.

This decision to use the Japanese word ‘sensei’ is, in a way, symbolic of Nishiyama’s inner feelings toward Reischauer. The word is not simply a common noun meaning a ‘teacher.’ It is used to address people in a teaching position, including university


professors, medical doctors and members of the Diet.67 It is never used to address a friend, colleague or peer. Edwin McClellan, who translated Natsume Soseki’s Kokoro into English, did not translate the word ‘sensei’ in the novel and kept the Japanese word, as in a sentence in the beginning of the story: I always called him ‘Sensei.’ I shall therefore refer to him simply as ‘Sensei,’ and not by his real name. It is not because I consider it more discreet, but it is because I find it more natural that I do so.

According to Mark Petersen (2003: 217), McClellan found it impossible to translate the word ‘sensei’ in the original, and therefore decided not to use an English word and simply explained in the footnote that it is close to ‘maître’ in French. Although Reischauer treated Nishiyama as a very close friend, and being a Japanese-American, Nishiyama was perfectly at home with American culture, he could not bring himself to comply with the American way of addressing a friend. It might be possible to think this was because Reischauer was more of a mentor to Nishiyama than a friend. Hence, the choice of the address term ‘sensei’ rather than calling him by his first name, ‘Ed.’ As an expert on Japan, married to a Japanese wife, and proficient in Japanese, it is likely that Reischauer understood Nishiyama’s sentiments. The unique duo of ‘kakeai manzai’ could not have been realized without this unusual relationship, solidly built on trust and respect.

5.1.3 Interpreters as tomei ningen Nishiyama maintains that an interpreter should not be recognized as a presence, because the ideal situation for interpersonal communication is a dialogue with two people talking to each other without an interpreter. In this sense, the presence of an interpreter is a ‘necessary evil’ (1970: 140). An interpreter is ‘a mediator, and yet, he should not be a mediator’ (ibid.: 134). He considers it a failure if speakers became conscious of the presence of an interpreter as a mediator, because they should be interacting with each other, not with the interpreter. What he meant by this is that the only time an interpreter is allowed to speak up, other than when he is interpreting, is ‘when he didn’t understand the message he heard and needed to ask. An interpreter should never speak his own mind’ (ibid.). In other words, interpreters should try ‘not to impose their own character. Rather, they should concentrate on listening carefully to an utterance as if the speaker’s feelings are their own’ (ibid.: 135). In essence, according to Nishiyama, ‘A skilled interpreter

67. This is why Japanese students often make the mistake of addressing a teacher or professor as ‘Teacher,’ a literal translation of ‘Sensei.’


is like a tomei ningen (transparent person). The interpreter is surely there, but the interlocutors rarely notice the presence and are left with the impression that they talked directly with each other’ (ibid.). In the interview, Nishiyama elaborated on this point: I wrote an interpreter is ‘tomei ningen’ (transparent person), because when I was at an international conference in Europe, there were interpreters in Arabic, German or English. They were on the podium providing consecutive interpreting. Skilled interpreters translated the message as if they themselves were the speakers. That’s how good they were. They interpreted exactly how the speaker would speak in that language, it seemed. You felt as if you understood Arabic or German speeches yourself, and you did not remember who the interpreter was… So, interpreters are there and although not actually transparent, they seem invisible. That is the ideal situation, although, lately, being in a booth makes you invisible anyway. But even when you are interpreting in a face-to-face interaction, and you see an interpreter there, the interpreter should be invisible. The speaker should be looking at the other speaker, not the interpreter. When I do interpreting, I intentionally look away so that people automatically look towards the speaker. This is how I do interpretation. That is when I realize that I am present in person, but should only remain as a voice to covey messages. That is the ideal way.

The last point Nishiyama made about intentionally looking away from the speaker to make him look at the listener, instead of the interpreter, is significant in revealing his perception of the role of an interpreter. Wadensjö reports of a trial in New Guinea where the interpreter tried to convey his status as a neutral rather than an active initiating party by ‘directing his attention not to any one of the people talking through him, but just to his own hands’ (Wadensjö 1998: 71). While the actual non-verbal actions differ, both cases represent the interpreter’s efforts to have the interlocutors communicate as directly as possible, with interpreters remaining as invisible as possible.

5.1.4 Nishiyama made visible by Apollo Nishiyama became a nation-wide hero for his simultaneous interpreting on NHK satellite broadcasts of the Apollo moon landing. While other interpreters were also involved in this historic event on commercial TV stations, as Muramatsu, Komatsu and myself, Nishiyama was a rare species in interpreting profession with an engineering background. Nishiyama and Kunihiro were on the public nation-wide NHK-TV network, but unlike Kunihiro, who was not science-orientd and reluctant to work for Apollo, Nishiyama worked more than willingly,


with great enthusiasm, and was exposed most widely and perhaps the longest hours – around 35 times for the 10-day Apollo live broadcasts. The astronauts’ conversation with NASA reporting, ‘Everything is go’ or ‘We’re A-OK’ was translated by Nishiyama as ‘Subete juncho’ and this became a popular phrase at the time (Nishiyama 1979: 127–149). In retrospect, this 1969 event was epoch-making in that the Japanese people for the first time saw simultaneous interpreters at work on TV, motivating many students to study English (Torikai 2005b). Among the events that ushered Japan into the international society, including the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and Osaka World EXPO in 1970, the Apollo broadcasts had a tremendous visible impact throughout the nation, particularly because TV stations, including NHK, decided to show simultaneous interpreters at work in the studio, to viewers. Nishiyama recalls how surprised he was when there was no seat for him in a booth in the TV station: I thought it was weird, but there was a seat for me in the studio. And a TV camera was pointed toward my seat. I said, ‘Hey, what’s going on?’ And they said, ‘Actually, we want to show your face.’ So I said, ‘No thank you. When I am doing simultaneous interpreting, I am very focused, and when I am concentrated my face looks scowled and serious. I don’t want to show that face.’ But they said, ‘We need your face.’ I asked why, and they said, ‘Viewers are calling in to ask, “What type of equipment are you using for simultaneous interpreting?”, so we decided that we need to show viewers that it is not a machine, but a living person.’ That’s how I ended up on TV.

Nishiyama added with a shy smile, ‘That’s when my face became famous.’ And indeed, that was when Nishiyama, the interpreter, became visible. Nevertheless, this visibility was something out of the ordinary, and didn’t alter the nature of the work being basically invisible. In the book he wrote in 1970, soon after the Apollo moon landing, Nishiyama continued to regard interpreters as ‘tomei ningen’ (35). Nishiyama admits that interpreters often feel frustrated, because while they need considerable intellectual capacity, oftentimes their work requires them to contain and restrain their urge for creativity: In interpreting work, you have to exclude your own presence from yourself as much as possible. You need creativity to reconstruct the original sentences in another language, and yet at the same time, you have to be careful that your own opinions and volition do not interfere with your interpreting. Interpreting work being as such, it runs the risk of suppressing human desire for creativity. Therefore, anybody involved with interpreting work must try to keep a healthy psychological balance. (1979: 109, my translation)


Interpreting work demands great intellectual capacity. In spite of the intelligence required, an interpreter must repress an aspect of creativity (your own opinion, ideas etc.) and concentrate on faithfully reproducing the words of the speaker. This would cause anybody, even someone with extremely strong mental strength, to suffer from frustration. (1979: 37, my translation)

One solution, Nishiyama suggests, is for the interpreter to have a different specialty, or another job besides interpreting, such as writing or teaching, which many professional interpreters actually do (cf. Pym 1998: 161–166). Asked whether he himself ever felt this frustration and regretted having become an interpreter instead of an engineer, Nishiyama replied: Of course, when you are overworked and the work is tiring, I would like nothing else but not be an interpreter. […] while interpreting, some people notice mistakes, some people complain, or someone gets drunk and addresses me, ‘Hey, interpreter.’ Those were the days, really. I was often treated like a sheer language machine. […] However, there was one time when I was happy I became an interpreter.

Then he went on to narrate the story of an old woman he happened to meet on a bus in Tokyo one day. The old woman, just like millions of others in Japan, saw Nishiyama on TV, interpreting live broadcasts of the Apollo moon landing. She bowed deeply to Nishiyama and thanked him courteously by saying, ‘Thank you very much. I did not even dream it possible that men would walk on the moon while I was still alive, but thanks to you, I was able to see for myself that it actually happened. Thank you so very much!’ Nishiyama was too surprised to say anything to this woman: I was at a loss for words and could not say anything except, ‘Oh,’ and bowed. I didn’t know what to say. It just hit me… How shall I explain this…I was terribly moved. At that instance, I thought to myself, ‘I guess being an interpreter can be rewarding sometimes.’ That was the first time I felt that way… I thought, ‘I’m so glad I learned to do simultaneous interpreting.’ There are times in your life you feel that way, right? I’ve been doing what I did for this occasion. That’s the way I felt.

Nishiyama, who aspired to become an electrical engineer when he was young, became an interpreter by chance. Ironically, it was because of his background in electrical engineering that he was asked, and accepted, to be the primary simultaneous interpreter for the NHK Apollo broadcasts.68 As an engineer, he had a 68. Nishiyama explains that he was recommended to NHK for his technical knowledge in electrical engineering, which most interpreters lacked.


genuine interest in the space mission and enjoyed the work (probably the only interpreter who did.).69 And thanks to this interpreting work, he was given the unusual chance to become visible to people, which eventually led to his chance encounter with the woman who, for the first time, made him feel ‘rewarded’ by the interpreting profession.

5.2

Komatsu as a visible machine

Komatsu Tatsuya’s career after the Japan Productivity Center (JPC) missions started while he was still in the U.S., with such meetings as U.S.-Japan Conference on Cultural and Educational Interchange around 1965. He recalls that at these meetings, he was more of a conference interpreter rendering simultaneous interpreting in a booth, whereas consecutive interpreting for the tripartite North Pacific Fishery Meeting, with U.S., Canada and Japan, was closer to diplomatic interpreting and was much more difficult: It was completely different from interpreting for JPC missions. Asano70 and I were a team at this meeting, but you see, it was almost like being thrown into a full-fledged diplomatic negotiations all of a sudden. We sort of groped our way through. I don’t remember the specific content or the words, but I do remember it was extremely difficult and we had a hard time. On top of it, the meeting lasted until late at night, to maybe 10. It was a lot of work. Well, I think you could say this was my first interpreting in diplomatic negotiations. It was around 1964, I think.

In 1965, Muramatsu and Kunihiro, already back in Japan, established a professional conference organizer, and named it “Simul,” taken from the word ‘simultaneous.’ They invited Komatsu to join, which he accepted. This was the beginning of his conference interpreting career in Japan, leading him to various top level conferences and negotiations, including summit meetings. Komatsu was also an interpreter at a dozen negotiations before the return of Okinawa to Japan, involving not only officials from both American and Japanese governments but various 69. For example, Kunihiro Masao tried to hide from NHK when they were looking for interpreters for the Apollo broadcasts, because he didn’t have confidence and didn’t want to do it, having not enough technical knowledge. He remembers when finally he had to interpret for one of the Apollo broadcasts, he was “miserable” and felt like “a sheep being dragged to a slaughterhouse.” 70. Asano Tasuku was a JPC interpreter, who later became a TV newscaster and the editor-inchief of Newsweek Japanese Edition, before his untimely death.


scholars, as well as U.S. Ambassador Reischauer. Komatsu remembers that the negotiations included a wide range of topics, such as the Japanese situation, theoretical background for the alliance, and most of all, the problems in Okinawa within the context of security in the Asian region. One thing Komatsu still remembers well is what a Japanese military expert said at one of the meetings: At that time, there was a hit song in Japan called “Koyubi no Omoide” (Memory of my Little Finger). There is a line in that pop song which goes, ‘My little finger that you bit still hurts,’ and I was interpreting this. This expert said that Okinawa was like this bitten little finger for the country of Japan. It’s only a little finger, but the hurt is not minor. When your little finger hurts, your entire body hurts. I remember I interpreted this. Soon after this, the return of Okinawa became a reality. Since I had been involved with the negotiations behind the scene all along, it really was impressive.

5.2.1 As a member of diplomatic teams As an experienced interpreter for countless Japanese missions at international meetings, whether hired by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Komatsu reveals that Japanese interpreters were treated as members of the team in diplomatic negotiations. Unlike interpreters from other countries, who were ‘hired as outside experts,’ Japanese counterparts had far more information from their clients. This, in Komatsu’s view, can be both positive and negative. The positive side is obvious – ‘It is important for any interpreter to receive as much information as possible.’ One of the negative elements he encountered in earlier periods was to be asked to take notes, especially at one-on-one ministerial meetings, and to submit reports after the meeting, which Komatsu and his colleagues made it a rule to refuse, explaining, ‘we get distracted and cannot concentrate on interpreting if we are asked to write a report afterwards.’ Another possible drawback is the potential issue of neutrality. If interpreters are treated as members of the negotiating team, accepted as ‘insiders,’ would this not affect the neutrality that professional interpreters are required to uphold as their work ethic? To this, Komatsu replies: It’s something to be grateful to be treated as ‘uchiwa’ (insider) and given much relevant information. We would never interfere with the content in any way, and as interpreters, we know we have to handle information objectively. I think interpreters are fully trained and prepared not to lose objectivity. I don’t think neutrality is an issue here.


On a positive note, Komatsu adds that receiving abundant information relevant to the assigned work definitely helps interpreters ‘anticipate’ what the speaker is going to say: Anticipation makes it possible for an interpreter to translate the message before the speaker actually expresses his/her thoughts. … If you try to understand and comprehend the message accurately, it is inevitable that an interpreter anticipates… So in my opinion, anticipation is not something special. In a way, it’s an indispensable part of understanding. Or, in other words, it’s an inevitable part, almost.

5.2.2 Faithful but visible Komatsu analyzes his own interpreting as putting the ‘emphasis on the original message’: Some people talk about interpreting as being a cultural clarifier, or bridging different cultures. I never did this. I have always thought very strongly that that is not something an interpreter should be doing. I think I always tried as best I could to be faithful to the original. So, I didn’t even think whether to leave an ambiguous statement as ambiguous or not. The only thing I was conscious of was to translate it as ‘kichitto’ (properly and accurately) as I could.

Komatsu used the English phrase ‘cultural clarifier’ to mean a new type of business interpreting where an interpreter ‘acts as a bicultural consultant giving advice on what to say and how to say it.’ This, in Komatsu’s view, oversteps the boundaries of the interpreter‘s role: Interpreters interfering in the content, including cultural things, with the exception of community interpreting… For conference interpreters, I think it’s a taboo. In this sense, you have to be faithful to the speaker. What I mean by being faithful is not to the speaker as a person, but to what the speaker said. Of course, in order to understand what was said, ultimately you have to understand the speaker. That’s for sure. Nevertheless, you have to approach the speaker through the source language text that the speaker produced. So, ultimately, you have to be faithful to the source language text.

This definitely is easier said than done, for at one point during the interview, he gave an example of Japanese Prime Minister Obuchi Keizo71 and his excessive modesty in his talk at a reception of a big international conference:

71. Obuchi Keizo was Japan’s prime minister from July 1998 to April 2000.


Komatsu: Obuchi is from the same constituency as Nakasone and Fukuda – Gunma. And so he said, ‘In Gunma Prefecture, I’m just an old man running a tiny ramen72 place around the corner. Nakasone-san and Fukuda-san are like huge department stores such as Mitsukoshi and Seibu.’73 Belittling himself. I was interpreting this and I thought…I mean, he is the Prime Minister of a country, you see. Being too humble. I had to think what kind of impression people from overseas might receive. I was doing consecutive interpreting then, and I softened the original expression somewhat to a ‘modest existence’ and translated it as ‘Compared with these two, I am not yet a big shot.’ This could be a kind of difference in culture. Torikai: Right, because this would be accepted favorably in Japan. Komatsu: Oh, yes. People would like it here. But you know, I was looking at the audience while I was interpreting, and I noticed people from overseas looked puzzled at times. Their reactions…to a certain degree… That is why gradually I softened the original to alleviate this.

Notwithstanding his belief in the canon of interpreting, Komatsu feels that it is unrealistic for clients, especially in diplomacy, to ‘demand interpreters to simply translate the words spoken literally, because you cannot detach words from a person’s thoughts. In order to understand words better, we have to know what the speaker is trying to say, what kind of person he is, in what position.’ Komatsu realizes the difficulty that an interpreter faces and calls it using an English word ‘a pitfall.’ Interpreters have to know what the speaker intends to say, but in the process, they ‘interpret’ the intention of the speaker in their own way. What they think the speaker’s intention is solely based on their own interpretation. Komatsu thinks the balance between the two criteria, between literal translation and interpreting the speaker’s intent, in his case is somewhere around 7:3, or 8:2. With all his insistence on faithfulness, however, Komatsu maintains that interpreters are not transparent: I’m not quite sure what you mean by being transparent, but I myself have never thought of an interpreter as transparent. It is true that for interpreting work, it is most important to be neutral and objective. However, as for the presence of an interpreter, we are quite conscious of – doing a good job, or aware of the need to contribute to a communicative event. It’s natural for interpreters to feel that way. So in this sense, I’d say an interpreter is quite a visible presence. Especially in

72. Ramen is Chinese noodles in soup that is inexpensive and very popular in Japan. You find a small ramen shop in any town. Obuchi’s expression introducing himself as “an old man running a tiny ramen place around the corner” is a metaphor, probably meaning an ordinary person you meet anywhere. 73. Both are famous department stores in Japan.


consecutive interpreting, but in some ways, simultaneous interpreting, too. You can’t deny the presence of an interpreter. Sometimes when it went really well, you might go unnoticed, but even so, I would assume that an interpreter has some form of presence one way or another.

For Komatsu, an interpreter cannot be transparent, because ‘it’s the interpreter who decides the meaning of an utterance.’ In fact, Komatsu feels that ‘it is necessary for an interpreter to consciously try to interpret the message correctly and express it in the right way,’ which would mean psychologically, an interpreter is not necessarily a kurogo.

5.2.3 The interpreter as a machine Komatsu’s analysis of the role of interpreters is rather complex. On the one hand, there is the ideal interpreter who does a faithful translation, and yet s/he cannot remain transparent, because the interpreter has to try to understand the speaker and his message, the result of which is the interpreter becomes visible. The visibility for Komatsu, then, seems to be more to do with the inner feelings or the psychology of the interpreters themselves. To prove this point, Komatsu pointed out several times in the interview that an interpreters’ contribution is limited, and he was doubtful that interpreters had any impact on diplomacy. In spite of all the conferences and diplomatic negotiations at which he worked, he maintains, ‘I don’t think I contributed to U.S.-Japan relations, to be frank with you.’ While he admits a meeting may or may not go smoothly depending on the quality of an interpreter, Komatsu feels: In the long run, to think that interpreters play some big role affecting the relationships between two nations is, in my view, overestimating interpreting. […] For the interpreter, the important task is to facilitate communication in communicative events, and we surely accomplish that task. But whether this contribution has a long term effect, affecting the relations between nations, I doubt it very much.

Thus, the role of an interpreter is first and foremost language and communication, understanding the language accurately and expressing it well, not going too much into the content of the text, including cultural aspects. In this sense, Komatsu argues, it is definitely true that an interpreter is a kurogo, and he even goes as far as to say that an interpreter is a ‘machine’: Komatsu: I think I contributed to improving the quality of interpreting in Japan, but I really don’t feel I contributed much to things like U.S.-Japan relations…[…] Of course, if you are a professional, it is only natural that you’ll make a meeting go smoothly. Otherwise, you can’t call yourself a professional. I think I’ve done


good work, but I just happened to be ... In that sense, I can view myself as a machine Torikai: A machine? Komatsu:A machine, in my view. Relatively a good one, you could say, perhaps.

Komatsu, who adamantly denied his contribution to Japan’s foreign diplomacy, declared himself a ‘machine,’ which may be close to becoming what Goffman calls an ‘animator.’ Komatsu summed up his own thinking about interpreting by saying that he might be a ‘nekkara no tsùyaku’ (an interpreter from head to foot).

5.3

Muramatsu and ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’

Interpreters are indispensable in foreign relations. And yet, ‘how seldom are these invisible yet indispensable persons noted by the historians!’ (Roland 1999: 7). The only time they are noticed, it seems, is when they are accused of having made an error in translation, or a mistranslation. There were indeed such occasions in Japan’s foreign policy after World War II. One historic case is the translation of Prime Minister Sato’s utterance at the 1970 meeting with President Nixon (see Chapter 2; Torikai 2004a: 36–47; Torikai 2005a: 28–31). Another was when Prime Minister Suzuki Zenkõ told the U.S. Congress that Japan was going to be like a “hari-nezumi” (‘a mouse with needles,’ meaning ‘a porcupine’ in English). What he intended to say was Japan would only use arms when attacked, but his interpreter didn’t hear the “hari” (needles) part and mistook it for ‘nezumi.’ He was reminded of an Aesop’s story, and translated it as becoming like ‘a wise mouse’ (see Chapter 2; Torikai 2004a: 48–57). In both instances, the interpreters were officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. One notable case involving a professional interpreter, and possibly the most widely known, is the case of the ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ (Torikai 2004a: 58–76; Torikai 2005a: 31–36).

5.3.1 What happened In January 1983, Prime Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro visited the United States for a summit conference with President Reagan, and was invited by the publisher of The Washington Post, Katherine Graham, to a breakfast meeting at her residence, where he talked about his views on defense, and stressed the need to make the Japanese archipelago an unsinkable aircraft carrier so that it can serve as a gigantic fort to defend the country from an invasion by Soviet bombers. The statement was consecutively translated by his official interpreter, Muramatsu Masumi.


Don Oberdorfer74 of The Washington Post, who reported Nakasone’s remark, gave his account of the story in a lecture he delivered at the International House of Japan Foreign Relations Dinner on April 10, 1997 (Oberdorfer 1997: 18–19): The next visitor was Yasuhiro Nakasone in 1983. He had just become Prime Minister. […] the Japanese Embassy, with its usual efficiency – Ambassador Yoshio Okawara was ambassador at the time – came and looked into the most exquisite details of this breakfast, where each person was going to sit, etc. The only thing they couldn’t figure out was what Nakasone might say. When he got there, Mrs. Graham said, ‘It’s very nice to have you here. We’d like to have this meeting on the record. Is that okay?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ As soon as he agreed, I, as the reporter doing the story, took out my tape recorder, walked over to his place, and put it right in front of him and turned it on.

The meeting started out discussing the automobile problem, but after a while, Oberdorfer decided to bring up security and military matters and asked, ‘Suzuki75 told this group you’re going to protect out to one thousand miles. What is your policy?’ Nakasone replied, through his interpreter, ‘My own view of defense is that the whole Japanese archipelago should be like an unsinkable aircraft carrier, putting up a tremendous bulwark of defense against infiltration of the Backfire bomber.76 To prevent Backfires from penetrating through this wall should be our first goal.’ Nakasone went on elaborating his ambitious military objectives for Japan, which went far beyond any of the statements made by previous prime ministers. Everyone was most impressed, and on the way out Donald Graham, the son of the publisher, said, ‘You know, we really ought to carry some text of the remarkable things he said.’ Thus, Oberdorfer wrote his story, ‘very carefully, following exactly what had been said in the English translation.’ Oberdorfer remembers how the Japanese press corps reacted when they read the first copies of The Washington Post. In his words, ‘they went absolutely crazy: (A) They had never heard these statements before, but (B) they fastened on the phrase ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier.’ According to Muramatsu, it was the Japanese journalists who translated the word back into Japanese: They are really clever, those newspaper people. They consulted a dictionary, and found the word in Japanese ‘fuchin-kûbo’ for ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ in

74. Don Oberdorfer was a Washington Post diplomatic correspondent until 1993, when he joined John Hopkins University’s Nitze School of Advanced International Studies as a resident scholar. 75. Suzuki Zenkõ was Nakasone’s predecessor as Japan’s prime minister. 76. The Soviet Union plane.


nglish. Really they were good at finding a good word. The word ‘fuchin-kûbo’ E existed even before the war. In English, it’s the same thing. When you are talking about a huge warship, you say ‘unsinkable.’

Muramatsu remembers that initially, before it became an issue, Nakasone liked the determined tone of the English translation, as did others present, such as the Japanese ambassador to the U.S. and officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who were all pleased and said ‘Very good.’ Muramatsu himself felt he had done a good job and was ‘quite satisfied with my own translation,’ until the remark was reported in the newspaper the next morning, and the Soviet Union ‘barked and said, are you implying we are an enemy?’ Faced with the Soviet protests, along with strong criticism within Japan, the media asked Nakasone if he had said ‘fuchin-kûbo.’ Oberdorfer (1997) testifies that at a press conference for the American press, ‘he said, yes, he did say it. He also had a press conference for the Japanese Press in which he said, no, he didn’t say it.’ This is a typical case of politicians “nimai-jita,” speaking with forked tongue. On one hand, Nakasone certainly didn’t want to antagonize the Japanese public – hence, he denied the remark to the Japanese press. Nevertheless, Nakasone wanted the American press to carry the story, because as Michael Schaller (2001) notes: When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he pledged to enhance U.S. military strength, challenge Soviet influence, and prod Japan into protecting its sea-lanes out to distance of at least 1,000 miles. Between 1982 and 1987, Congress several times demanded that Japan either expand its military capacity and take on a larger mission or pay the United States the cost of protecting its interests. Some of this anger reflected genuine concern over equitable defense cost sharing. But it also revealed growing frustration over Japan’s expanding trade imbalance, especially that caused by massive automobile exports. Japanese-American economic and security frictions during the 1980s would have been worse except for the strong personal bonds that Reagan established with Prime Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro, who took office in November 1982. An outspoken nationalist who echoed many of Reagan’s anti-Soviet themes, Nakasone endorsed the big American buildup and applauded Washington’s policy of challenging Soviet influence […]. (58)

In addition to accommodating American demands, it is possible to assume that Nakasone envisaged this opportunity as ‘gaiatsu’ (foreign pressure)77 to realize his long-held political belief on Japan’s security. Nakasone himself admits later that 77. Japanese leaders at times used “gaiatsu,” literally meaning pressure from outside, to achieve their political goals. Michael Armacost, U.S. Ambassador to Japan, 1989–1993, was nicknamed “Mr. Gaiatsu” by Japanese media (Oberdorfer 2001: 78).


‘fuchin-kûbo was a metaphor for waterproof defense’ (Torikai 2004a: 73) and that he ‘went to the States and talked about fuchin-kûbo or unmei kyodoutai,78 which many in Japan criticized, including newspapers, TV and scholars, but I persuaded them every time’ (Nakasone 1997: 9). Notwithstanding, Nakasone at first denied his remark because, in Muramatsu’s view, Nakasone was already regretting what he had said, and thus, he took issue with the word fuchin-kûbo and declared ‘I didn’t say it.’ Muramatsu argues that what he should have said was ‘I used a different word, but what I meant was the same.’ Instead, Nakasone denied his entire remark to the Japanese press, leading people to think, ‘Oh, he didn’t say it. Well, it must have been mistranslation.’ A day or two later, according to Oberdorfer, the Japanese press attaché came to his office and after listening to the tape of the breakfast meeting said, ‘He didn’t say it in Japanese. His interpreter said “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in English.’ Oberdorfer then had this tape analyzed in detail in Japanese, and found that what Nakasone had said in describing the Japanese position was an ‘ookina kõku bokan’ (a big aircraft carrier) and it was translated as ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier.’

Big or unsinkable? In Muramatsu’s memory, Nakasone’s remark in Japanese went something to the effect, ‘I will make the Japanese archipelago like an “ookina kõku bokan” (big aircraft carrier), and defend the U.S. and its allies from the Soviet SS21 and SS22 missiles.’ If Nakasone had indeed used the word ‘ookina,’ why didn’t Muramatsu translate it as ‘big’? His answer to this question was: The way he said it was “kakko-yoku” (flashy)… I was doing consecutive interpreting at that time, and I translated it as “making the Japanese archipelago like an unsinkable aircraft carrier.” That was the keyword. When you try to describe an island using a ship metaphor, I think there are many examples of idiomatic expressions with an adjective “unsinkable.”

There are two things Muramatsu mentioned which prompted him to select the word ‘unsinkable.’ One was ‘how Nakasone said it, his tone. He was in a way showing off.’ The other point was linguistic usage. Muramatsu argues that an expression ‘big aircraft carrier’ is ‘nonsensical in English. All aircraft carriers are

78. Nakasone made another remark at the Post meeting saying that ‘Japan and U.S. share the same destiny (unmei kyodoutai) across the Pacific’ (Asahi Shimbun, 1983, January 20), which too became an issue in Japan. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs took pains in explaining to the public that the statement in no way implied that Japan would do whatever was told by the U.S., but when Nakasone described the meaning as the U.S. and Japan being in the same boat, the situation became even worse (Torikai 2004a: 74–75).


big anyway. They aren’t just tiny boats.’ He gives further information on the usage of ‘unsinkable’ in English: By the way, do you happen to know a Broadway musical called Unsinkable Molly Brown? Molly Brown is the name of the heroine. […] She was famous when I was in the States. But what I am trying to say is, Molly Brown is somebody full of energy and vitality. She never gives up, and never gets depressed. Full of guts. That’s “the unsinkable Molly.” So, the word “unsinkable” is used in ordinary situations to mean very strong and invincible.

The aftermath Oberdorfer, who was coming to Japan in a few days with Secretary of State Shultz, decided to take the tape to Japan, talk to Nakasone’s people and the interpreter, and write a story about the issue: So I came to Japan, I confronted the interpreter who I thought, when he heard what I was going to say, was going to commit seppuku79 right on the spot. He pleaded with me not to write an article about it. I said, ‘We must. We’ve got to straighten this thing out. We just can’t leave this like this.

On this, Muramatsu has a different story to tell: Do you know Don Oberdorfer of The Washington Post? … He wrote about me, but you know, he first invited me to tea at the Hotel Okura, and we had tea together as old friends. And then, suddenly he started to write, so I asked, ‘This is not an interview, is it?’ And his answer was, ‘Sorry, I’ve got to write. I asked, and you talked, didn’t you?’ ‘That’s not true. I didn’t mean it that way,’ I protested, but he just went ahead and printed his story in his newspaper. […] But you know, I really think it’s betrayal if you have tea with an old friend of yours and turn it into an interview. I said, ‘This concerns my professional life, so please don’t write about it.’ He said, ‘No. I will write it.’ He just went ahead and wrote his article.

It turns out that, in Muramatsu’s recollection, what Oberdorfer wrote was ‘not bad,’ because in the editorial, he wrote ‘a big aircraft carrier doesn’t mean anything,’ and that ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier, if anything, sounds elegant,’ praising it as a good translation. Unfortunately, the correction ‘was not a big story in the Japanese press’ (Oberdorfer 1997: 19). By that time, people had lost interest in the details of the story, leaving the phrase ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ firmly in their minds as a ‘mistranslation.’ 79. Seppuku, sometimes called harakiri, is a formal and honourable way for a samurai to kill himself to take responsibility for his action.


5.3.2 What Nakasone intended to say After the media reported Nakasone’s ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ remark, labeling it an error in translation, Muramatsu never again served as an official interpreter for Japanese prime ministers.80 There wasn’t any chance for him to discuss the issue with Nakasone, and the whole issue seemingly went into oblivion. Muramatsu did not talk about it in public until after he semi-retired. He explains his long silence: I don’t think interpreters should give excuses or explanations. Even when we are accused of mistranslation, we should not blame anybody. We shouldn’t try to explain why we translated something in the way we did. Maybe this is out of vanity, or as I see it, it’s sort of aesthetics in life, but I also believe that the history will prove us correct eventually.

Nakasone, on the other hand, published a memoir in 2004 in which he gave a 4-page account of ‘the truth about the “unsinkable aircraft carrier”’: I would like to make clear what I really meant in my statement at this breakfast meeting. […] What I intended to say was – Japanese defense concept includes the issue of straits and sea lanes, but my thinking is that the basic thing is for us to cover the skies over the Japanese archipelago, so as not to permit infiltration by Soviet Backfire bombers. Backfire bombers are powerfully equipped, and if they were actively deployed, in case of emergency, over the Japanese archipelago and the Pacific Ocean, then we would be obliged to foresee that the defense system of Japan and the United States would be severely compromised. Therefore, as a precaution, the Japanese archipelago should be made like a ship surrounded by high walls to prevent foreign aircraft from infiltrating our territory. This is what I meant. […] The interpreter interpreted it as an ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ meaning in Japanese, ‘fuchin-kûbo.’ It was what is called ‘iyaku,’ a free translation, not a literal translation. As a result, Washington’s mistrust of Japan, which had been accumulated since Prime Minister Suzuki, was completely gone. I don’t think it made any difference who translated my words, because my statement itself was expressed in a very strong and determined manner. The U.S.-Japan relationship had been deteriorating over security issues, and we needed an intentional shock treatment. The one term ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ was worth more than one million words: its outcome immediate and effective. (112–113, my translation, emphasis added)

80. The Williamsburg Summit Conference immediately afterwards (May 28–30, 1983) was the last summit meeting for Muramatsu, where he was asked not to be seen nor heard by Prime Minister Nakasone.


Nakasone’s account of the episode inadvertently indicates the double-bind situation interpreters are placed in. When interpreting work is successful it is the speaker who is given credit, not the transparent interpreter. If things go wrong, however, it is the interpreter who suddenly comes to the fore and is blamed. Moreover, Nakasone’s blunt statement that it would not have made any difference who translated it, clearly shows his lack of understanding about what translation and interpreting entails. It is very likely that had there been a different interpreter there, no matter how strong and determined Nakasone sounded, his words might have been translated as simply a ‘big aircraft carrier.’ Ironically, after more than two decades, Nakasone agrees with Muramatsu that translating the word as ‘unsinkable’ was a ‘valid decision.’

5.3.3 Interpreter’s choice It is clear from Nakasone’s writing that what he intended to say was what his interpreter understood it to be. To draw on Speech Act Theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1969), whereas the locutionary meaning of Nakasone’s remark was ‘big aircraft carrier,’ the illocutionary force of the utterance possibly was ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier.’ Nevertheless, as with many alleged mistranslations, the attention in this case was focused on the legitimacy of a single word choice and its equivalence to the source text. To this traditional accusation, Eugene Nida as early as 1964 proposed two categories of ‘equivalents’ in translation: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. While formal equivalence is basically source-oriented, a dynamic equivalence translation focuses attention toward the receptor response and aims at naturalness so that a bilingual and bicultural person can justifiably say, ‘That is just the way we would say it’ (166). This is in accordance with what Muramatsu said of his criteria in interpreting: I’ve been saying this all along – my belief in interpreting is, whether you are interpreting from Japanese to English or vise versa,…translate in such a way that it is what the speaker might say if he were able to speak the target language. So, if Nakasone speaks militantly and macho-like, I think the interpreter should translate it that way, with a militant tone. If somebody speaks in a roundabout way, then, you should translate it in a roundabout way. That’s our job.

In order to render interpreting in a way the speaker might say it in the target language, what is crucial, Muramatsu believes, is context: ‘When I interpret, what I pay attention to is the context, and the tone of the speaker. And his personality. This is because in interpreting, the speaker’s tone or his personality should be reflected in the way the interpreter speaks.’


Katan (2004: 99–101) acknowledges that the speaker’s tone is part of the context, and Nida, in discussing dynamic equivalence, states ‘a natural rendering of translation must fit (1) the receptor language and culture as a whole, (2) the context of the particular message, and (3) the receptor-language audience’ (166–167). The immediate context of Nakasone’s remarks was a journalistic meeting in the U.S. with a Japanese prime minister, known for his hawkish political stance, speaking on Japan’s defense, at a time when the U.S. had been ‘criticizing Tokyo for spending too little on its own defense’ (Schaller 2001: 58). In Muramatsu’s view, the tone of the speaker as well as his personality constituted the ‘context,’ as in Nakasone trying to ‘show off ’ his militaristic stance being reflected in the way he spoke and his tone. What Muramatsu explained is reminiscent of a translation principle proposed by a 16th century translator Etienne Dolet, stating that, ‘through his choice and order of words the translator should produce a total overall effect with appropriate “tone”’ (Nida 1964: 16). Nida, however, warns of the dilemma the translator is caught in, and says that ‘in being faithful to the things talked about, he can destroy the spirit that pervades an original communication. At the same time, if he concentrates too much upon trying to reproduce the original “feeling” and “tone” of the message, he may be accused of playing loose with the substance of the document – the letter of the law’ (1964: 2–3). Clearly, it is no easy task for an interpreter to recreate the original tone. And yet, the original tone is something which cannot and should not be overlooked in understanding the speaker’s intent. As Bakhtin points out in discussing speech genres, ‘slight nuances of expressive intonation (one can take a drier or more respectful tone, a colder or warmer one; one can introduce the intonation of joy, and so forth) can express the speaker’s individuality (his emotional speech intent)’ (1986/2002: 79). Muramatsu emphasizes the importance of background knowledge to enable the interpreter to read from the speaker’s tone: In order to grasp the intent of the speaker’s utterance, you have to have quite a lot of background information… I had known Nakasone prior to the meeting as somebody who likes a militant posture. If you had that knowledge, it is natural for me to translate it as I did then.

Consequently, Muramatsu, who had prior knowledge of Nakasone as a former Imperial Navy officer during WWII and a politician known in Japan for his militaristic views, inferred from his statement that Nakasone was trying to impress the American media with his idea about making the entire country of Japan like


a big ship, which was not just a ship big in size, but a warship that cannot be sunk no matter what. Judging from the narrative of Muramatsu, we can surmise that in this particular communicative event, his original aim was to act as ‘animator’ in Goffman’s (1981) sense, by reproducing ‘Nakasone’s tone’ when he spoke. In trying to accomplish this, he based his decision of the choice of a keyword on his knowledge of the context, language, culture, as well as his prior knowledge about the speaker. He did this on the spur of the moment when he was rendering consecutive interpreting, taking notes and remembering the message, and came up with the ill-fated word ‘unsinkable.’ This, then, might have pushed him toward the role of ‘author,’ which for many seemed to be going beyond what the interpreter is expected to do as ‘animator.’ Hence, Nakasone’s assertion that it made no difference who translated his words, because he, as the ‘author and principal,’ made the statement ‘in a very strong and determined manner,’ thus pushing back the interpreter to the ‘animator’ status.

5.4

Sohma as the first female simultaneous interpreter in Japan

Sohma Yukika is the first female simultaneous interpreter in Japan. While the number of female interpreters in Japan increased in the 1970s, such that women account for more than 80% of the market today, ‘until around the 70s, first class professional interpreters were mostly males’ (Komatsu 2003: 22, my translation). Komatsu recalls that in 1973, the Japanese Ministry of Finance was initially against hiring a team of three female interpreters to serve at an IMF- sponsored G-5 International Conference on Finance, because ‘the conference is much too important for women to handle’ (22). In the 1950s, then, Sohma was a rare species as probably the only woman who worked as a diplomatic interpreter in Japan.

5.4.1 Gender bias Sohma and Nishiyama attended an MRA conference in Caux, Switzerland, in 1950 (see Chapter 4), and on the way back, they traveled to the U.S. and visited the State Department. Sohma recalls that while they were in the States, Nishiyama handled most of the interpreting for Japanese Diet members and others, disappointing Sohma: ‘I was crushed with envy… I thought, why won’t they let me do it? Just because I am a woman...’ Sohma remembers that in the post-war period, men would not take women seriously. Their reaction to women who wanted to do any kind of work was, ‘Oh,


only a woman,’ because ‘nobody thought a woman could do any proper work like men do.’ She was able to overcome this gender bias, thanks to Chiba Saburo – the only Dietman who treated her properly at a tme when nobody treated women seriously: ‘Rep.Chiba Saburo was different… he thought I resembled my father, and said, “Look at this face. Doesn’t she look like Rep. Ozaki?” and he introduced me to people.’ In 1965, when Representative Chiba established the Asian Parliamentarians Union, Sohma was there to help with interpreting, which eventually led her to work for Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke,81 whom she regards as ‘very different from self-centered politicians nowadays.’

5.4.2 Interpreting as a ‘calling’ There is a recurring message that Sohma emphasized, represented by two words she reiterated throughout the interview: ‘jonetsu’ and ‘calling.’ The Japanese word ‘jonetsu’ appeared repeatedly when discussing interpreters’ role. To Sohma, interpreting endeavours have to be supported by the interpreters’ enthusiasm or passion to try to make the listener understand the speaker’s message. In fact, Sohma thinks interpreting itself becomes meaningless without this passion. This enthusiasm, then, is prerequisite in trying to interpret somebody’s message: […] what’s important is for you to want to make this idea understood by the other side. You’ve got to have this ‘jonetsu’ (passion or enthusiasm). Otherwise, interpreting is meaningless. […] the most important thing is empathy. And how you can make others understand what’s being said. This ‘jonetsu’ is the most important, don’t you think? So, in the end, it comes down to why you interpret. For what purpose? This, I think, is fundamental.

In discussing the interpreters’ responsibility, Sohma used another word ‘calling’ in English. While this is not a common word in Japan, it seems to come naturally to Sohma. You could use the Japanese equivalent ‘ten-mei’ (order from God), but it does not have the same connotation that the English ‘calling’ has, and this may be why Sohma used the English word without translating it into Japanese. What is even more striking is that Sohma firmly believes interpreting work is a ‘calling’

81. Kishi Nobusuke (1896–1987), a powerful politician since before the war, became Japanese Prime Minister in 1957, signed and forcefully passed a controversial new Japan-U.S. Security Treaty in 1960. Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo is Kishi’s grandson, and former Prime Minister Sato Eisaku is Kishi’s brother.


from God. For Sohma, it is not just work. It is a special mission that is entrusted to her by God.

5.4.3 Mother and daughter Sohma’s insistence on empathy is typically reflected in one instance when her daughter Fujiko was doing simultaneous interpreting in 1975. Sohma suddenly stood up, walked to an interpreter’s booth, and scolded her daughter. Fujiko (Hara 2004) recounts the episode: It was in 1975. Ten years had passed since I was first paid for my interpreting work, and I was just beginning to think I had become a professional. The Asian Parliamentarians Union invited a congressman from South Vietnam to their meeting in Japan. It was right before the fall of Saigon, and this congressman talked about the plight of his home country. When I was interpreting his speech simultaneously, all of a sudden, my mother rushed towards me with a furious look on her face, and started to bang on the booth where I was doing interpreting. I gave the microphone to my booth mate, and went outside the booth. My mother was there fuming. Apparently, I was speaking in a nonchalant manner, saying something like, “Well, as for Vietnam…” and she criticized my interpreting for lacking empathy. “Vietnam is on the verge of collapse, don’t you see? You are interpreting just to show off your skill,” she said. “This man came to Japan to ask people to understand the situation in his country. He came to persuade people. You don’t even think about the feelings of the speaker. If you don’t feel the speaker’s passion for his own country or share his sense of crisis, quit interpreting work altogether!” She was trembling as she scolded me. (32, my translation)

The author happened to be near the scene, listening to the skillful interpreting performance, when Sohma came rushing to the booth where Fujiko was working. The mother was furious, and the daughter started to cry – the situation was most unusual at an international meeting, quite extraordinary and unforgettable. Sohma remembered clearly that she was angry: Yes, I was angry. I remember. Fujiko was interpreting, thinking she’s doing a great job. She was almost too proud of herself. You know, it was during the war in Vietnam, right before the U.S. lost in Vietnam. Somebody from Vietnam was there speaking to the Japanese people – somebody whose country is on the verge of collapse. But Fujiko’s interpreting didn’t convey any of the feelings this speaker tried to express. No sad feeling or hurt… “Stop interpreting if you don’t feel the hurt that the speaker is feeling,” I told her. If you cannot convey the speaker’s feelings, whether joy or sadness or hurt, it’s useless. I believe that’s the basics of interpreting.


In order for an interpreter to have empathy, s/he has to know the speaker well. Therefore, Sohma believes that unless you know somebody well, you are not able to render proper interpreting. In her words, ‘you need room in your heart.’ At the same time, Sohma adds that an interpreter has ‘to be well versed in international affairs, and grasp the position of each country in the world.’ This is why Sohma thinks that ‘interpreting is not a business,’ but rather, a ‘calling.’

5.4.4 Interpreters’ responsibility Sohma asserts that interpreters have to understand the message of the participants within the context of the international situation: Sohma: In my case, when they set up this Asian Parliamentarians Union, I used to interpret between Prime Minister Kishi and Go Din Diem of Vietnam – people who shoulder the future of their countries. I myself may not have the ability to do it, but at least, I can try to understand them. Torikai: In such situations, which side is more important for you as an interpreter? Sohma: Both are important. Torikai: Both. The other party as well. Sohma: Certainly. You can’t interpret if it’s only for one side. Usually people in diplomatic negotiations, like Prime Minister Kishi, they watch the whole of Asia and speak, so… Torikai: When you interpret, do you feel you become transparent? Or do you sometimes add something, like making it sound more natural in English? Sohma: Add something, and make the other side understand. That’s interpreting. So, we have to always think how we can make the other side understand how the speaker feels. It’s difficult, but we have to keep trying… […] Whoever interprets has to think in terms of the whole context of the world. That would make interpreting entirely different. How interpreters feel and think when they are interpreting, that’s what counts. Do you do interpreting thinking it’s just your job? Or is it your calling? […] What is important is whether you do your interpreting with a mission in mind…

Sohma argued that an interpreter should work for both sides in diplomatic negotiations, understanding the ‘feelings’ of the speaker and the ‘context’ of the meeting, as well as trying to make the listener understand the message. In her narrative, however, there was one episode where she clearly shifted her ‘footing’ (Goffman 1981) toward the receptor, the listener. It was in 1950,


when Sohma interpreted for two MRA people who met Ichimada Hisato,82 then president of the Bank of Japan, who was so powerful at that time that he was nicknamed the ‘emperor of banks.’ Sohma interpreted consecutively what the MRA people said into Japanese: I can assure you I had never learned so much about interpreting as on this occasion. You say something without sufficient thinking, and he just looks up at the ceiling. He gets bored… So, I took care to always look at his face when I was interpreting. No matter how hard I try when I interpret, with all my zest, … if the listener gets bored and looks away, that’s no use. So I remember I interpreted to keep him interested… Nobody was so severe as this guy was. When I was interpreting, I was scared stiff…Mr.Ichimada, was terrifying… Oh, it was some work.

Sohma explained that ‘it was very important to attract and hold his attention,’ because the purpose, or ‘skopos ’ (Vermeer 1989), of the meeting was for MRA to solicit support from Ichimada. As such, Sohma ‘did a lot of thinking about what kind of words were best to use,’ and tried to ‘select words he would understand.’ Sohma admitted that some people might think this is way beyond the responsibility of an interpreter and that Sohma should not have made the kind of decision she did. Her answer to this criticism is simple – ‘but if the listener doesn’t understand you, you are in trouble, right?’

5.4.5 Motivation for an interpreter For Sohma, the issue of interpreters’ frustration is not a problem. Her motivation to do interpreting work is crystal clear. It comes from her strong desire to help people in Japan understand the situation in the world, of which Japan is a member: What was uppermost in my mind when I was working really hard in interpreting was my wish to make the Japanese understand what other people overseas were thinking. That was the strongest. How we can make Japanese understand international thinking – that was my strongest motivation. Japan has to be a country in the international community. You shouldn’t go to war like we did in the past, so we shouldn’t be isolated. We have to be a member of the world. That is why even to this day, I continue to say, ‘Japan, as a member of the international community…’

82. Ichimada Hisato (1893–1984) was the 18th President of the Bank of Japan. He was one of the Japanese representatives at the San Francisco Peace Conference.


Therefore, people who want to be interpreters have to be motivated to serve a cause for their country and for the world. Not to think of interpreting as simply your job or profession, but to consider it as your ‘calling.’

From what Sohma said about interpreting, her notion of the interpreter’s role seems to be a visible intermediary, who is motivated by a strong wish to educate her fellow Japanese. In Sohma’s view, an interpreter is somebody who tries to understand the message of the speaker and conveys it to the other party, and this would have to be carried out with a sense of ‘mission,’ while at the same time, you have to make efforts to become ‘a decent human being’ in order to become an interpreter.

5.5

Kunihiro and his keren interpreting

Very few people, most likely no one, would acknowledge the role of an interpreter as ‘principal’ in Goffman’s (1981) notion of speaker, because after all, what an interpreter does is to speak words that have been uttered by someone else in a different language, and the words uttered by an interpreter never contain his own ideas and thoughts. An interpreter is generally understood to function as ‘animator,’ and ‘author’ under some circumstances, but never ‘principal.’ However, there are exceptional cases when an interpreter functioned as ‘principal.’ André Kaminker, the legendary interpreter in modern times, is one such example. At one occasion he interpreted, the speaker complained to Kaminker, ‘That is not exactly what I said,’ to which he replied, ‘No, sir, but it is what you ought to have said’ (Roland 1999: 167). Another time at the UN, when Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov kept on talking when everyone was eager to leave, and when finally it was Kaminker’s turn to interpret, he summed up the entire speech in French and simply said, ‘M. Molotov dit non (Mr. Molotov says no)’ (Trevelyan 1973: 81). When Japanese Prime Minister Miki83 visited the United States in 1975, his interpreter acted as ‘principal,’ reminiscent of André Kaminker. The interpreter was Kunihiro Masao.

83. Miki Takeo (1907–1988) became a member of the Diet at the age of 30, and all through his life, he pursued peace, democracy, and ethics in politics. Dubbed “Clean Miki,” he became Prime Minister in 1974, after Tanaka Kakuei resigned over his money scandal.


5.5.1 Prime Minister Miki’s press conference Kunihiro explains that any new prime minister had to give a talk at the Press Club in Washington DC, and Miki followed suit. What was tricky about this talk, according to Kunihiro, was that the press conference usually ended with a humorous question, meant to be a joke, but actually to evaluate and assess the personality and capacity of the speaker as a politician. Kunihiro claims he knew this practice; ‘a whole bunch of expert wolves in Washington making judgments about a prime minister depending on how well he manages this sort of question.’ Therefore he warned Miki about this beforehand telling him, ‘Mr. Prime Minister, for the last question, I will translate freely, so please don’t say anything about it.’ He gave prior warning of his decision to translate ‘in the way I feel appropriate,’ because Miki understood English, and ‘if he started to say something like, oh, I didn’t say anything of the sort, I’d lose face.’ At the end of the press conference, an anticipated humorous question was posed, asking the Prime Minister to sell the strongest and by far the most popular baseball team in Japan then, the Yomiuri Giants, to the United States to make American baseball stronger. To this facetious question, Miki gave, not unexpectedly, his typical sincere, honest, but ‘too serious’ answer, and Kunihiro wondered, ‘why on earth does he have to say something so unintersting and boring.’ As Kunihiro and many others testify, Miki was an extremely serious person, and worse, he didn’t know much about baseball. Kunihiro immediately thought ‘here it comes – this is the question to test Miki’s ability.’ The initial answer that came to his mind was to say, ‘Sure, I’ll be happy to give away the goddam Yomiuri Giants,’ since personally the Giants was not his favorite. However, as he was contemplating this, he noticed Watanabe Tsuneo sitting right in front of him. Watanabe, who later became a dominant figure in the Yomiuri Group and the owner of the Yomiuri Giants, was then the Yomiuri bureau chief in Washington DC, and Kunihiro thought, ‘Uh-oh, I shouldn’t make an enemy of him. That could be detrimental to Miki’s future.’ With ‘quick thinking,’ remembering the state of the U.S.-Japan negotiations those days as being not exactly on friendly terms, he said in the end something to the effect: Professional baseball now has become a national pastime in Japan. It’s not a national pastime only for the American people. It’s almost like a national sport in Japan. Don’t think we will say yes to everything you ask for. It’s the same with U.S.-Japan negotiations.

When he said this, ‘everybody roared and applauded,’ except for Miki who ‘looked bewildered.’ The only person who worried Kunihiro at the time was Miyazawa Kiichi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, known for his fluency in English. Kunihiro


was so concerned how Miyazawa would evaluate the translation that he kept peeping at him from time to time while he was doing consecutive interpreting. He was ‘really relieved’ and felt as if he ‘passed the exam’ when even Miyazawa ‘roared with laughter.’ To make him even happier, a major newspaper in Japan reported on Miki’s press conference in an article entitled ‘Interpreter’s “beautiful art” saved Miki’ (The Asahi Shimbun, Friday, August 8, 1975: 2), although Kunihiro felt that it wasn’t really Miki who was saved but it was himself that was saved by the commentary, praising his ‘intentional “misinterpretation”’ as a ‘fine play by Mr. Kunihiro, who believes translation is “Traduttore (translator), traditore (traitor)”’84 (my translation). In the United States, the New York Times columnist James Reston lauded the Japanese Prime Minister’s visit, which was coincidentally on the 30th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and commented, ‘Mr. Miki is not a dramatic world figure […] but he has come to this country with a philosophy, almost a yearning for understanding and cooperation, and this is both a change and an opportunity. […] he had some thoughts and insights about how to reconcile the differences between the United States and Japan, and how to bring the industrial nations into discussion with Moscow, Peking, and the poor and hungry nations[…]’ (The New York Times, Friday, August 8, 1975: 27). Kunihiro found this article in the morning paper, when he was staying at the Waldorf Astoria with the entourage, and he rushed to Miki telling him, ‘Mr. Prime Minister, Reston wrote such a nice story. Just think, Reston wrote it – the best columnist in the States.’ He remembers that ‘Miki-san was real happy.’

5.5.2 Keren interpreting While Kunihiro was grateful that his interpreting performance at Miki’s press conference was appreciated, he was frank to admit that ‘as an interpreter, what I did was sort of a “keren sumo” if you will.’ The word ‘keren’ originates in kabuki, as in ‘keren ga ooi’ meaning ‘play to the gallery.’ According to Kodama, ‘Kabuki performances sometimes offer extravagant spectacles for visual appeal. A show using real water is called keren’ (2000: 85), as well as various stage tricks, which ‘used to be looked down upon as not being worthy of true drama, but now it is widely accepted as one of the enjoyable features of kabuki’ (85). Kunihiro explains his use of the term in analogy with sumo: 84. Italian aphorism, punning on the words ‘translator’ and ‘traitor’ (Seleskovitch 1978: 18; Ortega y Gasset 1973/1992: 94). See also 2.5.


What ‘keren’ means is that it’s beautiful, fancy and gorgeous, but not legitimate. For example, in sumo wrestling, in what’s called ‘tottari’ or ‘ashitori’ you win, that’s for sure, but it’s not an orthodox sumo move like ‘uwate-nage’ or ‘shitatenage.’ It’s not part of the sumo canon. It’s almost like trickery. That’s what ‘keren’ means. So I admit what I did was ‘keren art’ of interpreting. There’s no question about that.

When pressed about the ‘role of an interpreter,’ Kunihiro was quick to admit that he didn’t consider himself an interpreter: ‘So you see, I am not an interpreter. Never. I did all of that for Prime Minister Miki. It’s almost like loving somebody too much and you go overboard.’ Kunihiro explains that he continued interpreting for Miki, when he was foreign minister, only because he wanted to help him become prime minister: […] to be honest with you, I really didn’t like interpreting, but it is true I did my best for Miki… What I wanted to do was somehow to make Miki, you’ll have to excuse me if I sounded arrogant, but to make him a man, a prime minister. I wanted him to be the Prime Minister. And what I could do for him was foreign affairs; my expertise was in dealing with foreign countries, and to help him in this respect as one of his staff.

Among the five pioneer interpreters interviewed, Kunihiro was the only one who confessed to not liking interpreting. It actually is a surprising confession from a man who was deemed the ‘God of Simultaneous Interpreting’ (Dôji-Tsûyaku no Kamisama) throughout the country, receiving such comments as the one below by Edwin O. Reischauer, a Japan-raised bilingual U.S. Ambassador to Japan: What caught my attention first was his unparalleled skill as an interpreter between English and Japanese. He was always careful to translate ideas correctly and not just get by with a literal translation, which often confuses as much as it clarifies. He would seek out le mot juste (to slip into French) to be sure to convey the exact meaning. And his skill at that miraculous and arcane art of simultaneous translation always left me in awe. (1982: 289–290)

In a book he co-authored with Nishiyama in 1969, Kunihiro describes the role of an interpreter: Some people insist that an interpreter should act as a machine, but I do not agree with this. After all, it is a human being who does interpreting. That being the case, it is only natural that a message goes through a filter which is the individual character of the interpreter. An interpreter is not a robot, nor a machine. […] On this point, I often use the analogy of the relationship between a composer and a player. Among professionals in music, a composer receives by far the greatest respect. After all, he creates new music out of his brain. Nevertheless, a


first-class player should also be respected. To be sure, he has to play a piece based on the note presented by the composer. He is not permitted to deviate from it. Interpreters are the same. If a speaker said, ‘When a dog faces the east, its tail faces the west,’ you cannot tell a story of a cat or change the east-west to south-north. That would be going too far. However, is it really the case that a player is not allowed to have creativity or originality? That is not the case. Paderewski, Gieseking and Serkin all might play the same Beethoven’s piano concerto, but their performances will be all different. Each is unique and appealing in its own way. (88–89, my translation)

In the same essay, Kunihiro warns of the frustration that an interpreter might feel: ‘An interpreter is often bothered and frustrated by the feeling that his work lacks ‘shutaisei’ (autonomy). This feeling occurs because we label our work as menial, far from the joy of creation or self-actualization […]’ (1969: 89, my translation). His advice to prospective interpreters is for them to study hard, not only professional skills but related areas for background knowledge, just as pianists do, to enrich oneself as a human being and as an artist, and learn the art to perfection (ibid.). These efforts, Kunihiro argues, are indispensable so that interpreters themselves are able to ‘regard the work highly, maintain psychological security, take pride in their work,’ and ‘establish conference interpreting as a profession’ (ibid.: 89–90). When Kunihiro mentioned ‘frustration’ in interpreting, because the work lacks ‘shutaisei’ (autonomy) and is far from the ‘joy of creation or self-actualization,’ and there is a need to ‘maintain psychological security,’ it could be that what he wrote expressed his own inner feelings. He was around 39 years old then, already a well established scholar, writer, TV personality, and advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. At about the same time, the God of Simultaneous Interpreting advised a young novice interpreter (the author) not to consider interpreting as her life-long career, warning her that ‘eventually, you’ll want to sing your own song.’ In the interview, Kunihiro confided that when he said this, he was talking about himself, that it was ‘really myself who wanted to sing my own song.’ Psychologist Maslow (1970) distinguishes five classes of needs in hierarchy: physiological needs, safety, love, esteem, and finally, self-actualization. A researcher on motivation Zoltán Dörnyei (2001) explains that among early studies on human motivation focused on basic human needs, Maslow’s classification is the most important, adding that in current research, ‘the concept of a “need” has been replaced by the more specific construct of a goal, which is seen as the “engine” to fire the action and provide the direction in which to act’ (25, emphasis in original).


In Kunihiro’s case, by the time he was in his late 30s, his needs for esteem had been satisfied as a versatile simultaneous interpreter and it could be that the final category of ‘self-actualization’ was what he needed, which he obviously felt difficult to achieve in his interpreting work (cf. Pym 1998: 166). Instead, he found for himself another goal – ‘the engine to fire the action’ in a future prime minister, Miki Takeo.

5.5.3 Comradeship with Miki In his own assessment, it was Miki’s presence as a statesman that kept Kunihiro motivated to continue as an interpreter. Notwithstanding, the relationship between Miki and Kunihiro evidently was beyond the usual politician-interpreter, or minister–aide relationship for that matter, and to cite Kunihiro’s own words, the relationship was ‘in a way, interesting.’ Chikushi Tetsuya, a widely respected anchorperson on TBS85 describes this relationship in his essay ‘Kimyo na Hishokan’:86 When Mr. Miki Takeo was appointed the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he came to Kasumigaseki87 with an unusual aide. That was the first meeting between Mr. Kunihiro Masao and myself, then a political journalist reporting on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The strangeness of ‘Kunihiro, the aide’ was most exemplified in the way he behaved. Not in the least did he have an air of being a ‘jiboku,’ a servant, to his superior Mr. Miki. Rather, it came across very strongly that he was helping Mr. Miki based on a union, close to comradeship. This was totally out of the ordinary from the way usual ministerial aides are. Whenever Kunihiro came to the Press Club within the Ministry, he spoke on diverse subjects entirely in his own words, speaking his thoughts. […] In a word, I think Mr. Kunihiro is a ‘jiyuu-jin’ (free person), an unusual type of person in this country. […] A good illustration of this is the aforementioned relationship with Mr. Miki. Mr. Kunihiro played an important role in international affairs, including U.S.-Japan relations, as a brain and a personal aide to a statesman who eventually became prime minister. This, however, never diminished his ‘freedom’ in his relationship with Mr. Miki. When at times Mr. Kunihiro did not agree with Mr. Miki over policy choices and decisions, he did not contain himself. Mr. Kunihiro

85. Chikushi used to be with The Asahi Shimbun. 86. Can be translated as ‘a strange and unusual aide.’ 87. Kasumigaseki is the central part of Tokyo, where all the government ministries are located.


worked alongside Mr. Miki for many years, and yet, I doubt very much that he ever voted for the party to which Mr. Miki belonged88 [… ]. (1982: 297–298, emphasis in original, my translation)

As Chikushi observed, Kunihiro as an aide to the Foreign Minister did not act like an aide, and he certainly did not act like an interpreter either. When he sidestepped his role as an interpreter for Prime Minister Miki, he did this with a conviction that his priority was decidedly on his responsibility as a partner or a political comrade with Miki. This is understandable when you realize that they both shared the same political beliefs, especially on the issue of Japan’s Peace Constitution. While Miki belonged to the conservative Liberal Democratic Party, he was known as a liberal, sympathetic to the views of the opposition Socialist Party, which Kunihiro joined later and for which he won a seat in the Upper House. Kunihiro’s partnership with Miki started when he first received a phone call from Miki, then Liberal Democratic Party secretary general during the Ikeda administration. Miki called Kunihiro, a lecturer at Chuo University at the time, to ask him to have weekly study sessions on international affairs reading Time or Newsweek. Kunihiro bluntly replied, ‘That would be fine, but I have never voted for the party you are a member of and I probably never will.’ What Miki said to this, partially using English, moved Kunihiro profoundly. Kunihiro remembers Miki saying: ‘That isn’t a problem at all. The act of voting is to “vote one’s conscience” and whether that is in favour of the political party I am with or not, does not matter at all. What’s important is, to “vote one’s conscience.”’ Miki never asked Kunihiro which party he voted for, and this impressed him even further. Kunihiro reveals: He never asked a stupid question like, “So, which party do you vote for?” I think he knew. He probably thought, “I know, this guy votes for the Socialist Party.” My guess is that even Miki himself never voted for the Liberal Democratic Party. He might have reluctantly put down “LDP” when he was prime minister… One time, his wife Mutsuko-san asked him, “Why are you still a member of such a party as LDP?” I was right there with them... Then Miki-san answered sadly, “If I leave LDP, they will probably change everything, including Article 9 of the Constitution.”

In the interview, Kunihiro reiterated his own political stance of staunchly adhering to the Peace Constitution, based upon his bitter wartime experiences, and as such, it is easy to imagine he was deeply moved and attracted to this seasoned LDP leader who actually held similar views on peace and the Constitution. His intention, or to use Vermeer’s (1989) term, his ‘skopos’ or a purpose, was clearly to serve for the good of Miki Takeo, whom he admired as a statesman and 88. Miki Takeo belonged to the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.


considered his comrade. Consequently, he compromised his ethical consideration as an interpreter, or to put it more bluntly, overruled the interpreter ethics, as well as the canons of translation, in favour of making Miki a success in the U.S. Thus, Kunihiro’s criteria for making choices in interpreting were based not so much on interpreting but on what was best for the prime minister. He was far from transparent in this respect, but his extreme ‘domestication’ (Venuti 1995) ironically made his interpreting so transparent at the press conference that people, including a leading American columnist, were impressed by Miki, thereby achieving Kunihiro’s ultimate goal – to make Prime Minister Miki known, appreciated and respected in the United States. In a way, Kunihiro’s keren interpreting is a testimony to Angelelli’s claim about the interpreter as a ‘powerful, visible individual who has agency in the interaction. As such, the interpreter would be capable of exercising power and/or solidarity. The interpreter would be considered as someone who is capable of either maintaining or altering the status quo’ (2004a: 89). Undeniably, Kunihiro changed the status quo for the Japanese prime minister.

5.6

Discussion

It is truly a challenge to try to analyze the interpreting practice of the five pioneers and categorize them into some easy-to-understand framework. They are all distinctly different individuals with diverse backgrounds, working in varied communicative settings with multiple-faceted interpreting practice and their comments and opinions do not present a coherent profile of an interpreter. Indeed, it is risky to assume that all interpreters perform their work equally, because ‘interpreters’ work settings exert a powerful influence on their behaviors in practice, as well as their beliefs about their roles’ (Angelelli 2004a: 83). For example, they all agreed on the importance of ‘rapport,’ understanding and feeling empathy toward the speaker, as a prerequisite for successful interpreting. The ideal, and constant, ‘rapport’ can be seen between Nishiyama and Reishchauer, or between Kunihiro and Miki. However, these two pairs portray quite different kinds of relationships between interpreter and speaker, in terms of psychological distance and power relations, exemplified in the way Nishiyama addressed Reischauer as ‘sensei,’ compared with Kunihiro acting as a ‘comrade’ with Miki, who called Kunihiro ‘sensei.’ Another example to illustrate the complexity is the answers they gave to the question: have you ever felt tired of interpreting and wanted to quit? Anthony Pym (1998: 166–167) urges that ‘Any understanding of translators as people must seek to explain why they become translators and why they stop working as translators,’


and reports a case study of French-German student group, showing that although ‘translating initially looks like an act of power, the translating translator can become relatively powerless,’ as a consequence driving some ‘to seek to recover their own voices,’ unless they have ‘a pure love of translating’ or ‘some kind of emotional relationship with a particular foreign culture or individual author.’ The two people who admitted not liking interpreting work were Nishiyama and Kunihiro. In Nishiyama’s case, his expertise was in electrical engineering, and circumstances forced him to become an interpreter. Later in his career, however, he interpreted for something he was really interested in, the Apollo broadcasts, which made him known to the public as ‘Nishiyama, the Apollo interpreter.’ He gave a detailed account of an elderly lady who courteously thanked him for his interpreting for the Apollo moon landing. He concluded that it was the first and the only time he felt rewarded as an interpreter. Significantly, Nishiyama expressed the strongest opinion about the role of interpreters as definitely kurogo, totally transparent and invisible. Unlike Nishiyama, Kunihiro became an interpreter out of his own choice and was dubbed the ‘God of Simultaneous Interpreting,’ but it was Kunihiro who was most outspoken about not liking interpreting. Not that he was sorry he became an interpreter, but he was determined he would not do it any more, admiring Muramatsu for his continuing enthusiasm in interpreting. He made it very clear that he would rather ‘sing his own song,’ recover his own voice (Pym 1998: 166), defying a kurogo role, although fully aware that his keren interpreting for Miki was something out of the ordinary, not to be permitted as an interpreter. Nishiyama and Muramatsu were the two people who believed in the role of interpreters as kurogo, although with a slight difference. Whilst Nishiyama emphasized the importance of becoming totally transparent and invisible, Muramatsu felt a little adjustment could be in order, such as arranging the hem of the actor’s kimono on stage. Muramatsu, whom Kunihiro considers ‘a born interpreter,’ and popularly known as ‘Mr. Simultaneous Interpreter’ once gave up interpreting and worked as an economist in the U.S., although he soon realized that what made him not want to continue was working as an escort interpreter on the road, and that he enjoyed interpreting practice itself. Two people who denied ever thinking of quitting the interpreting work were Sohma and Komatsu. Sohma answered she never became tired of interpreting because she does interpreting with a mission. To Sohma, interpreting is her ‘calling,’ not simply a job. When asked if he ever felt tired of interpreting, Komatsu readily denied it. Ironically, someone who never liked to talk became ‘an interpreter from head to foot.’ He restrains himself to the role of an interpreter, never deviates from


it, and is never ambitious to exert influence. Komatsu is the only one among the interviewees who admitted that he did not quite understand what ‘transparency’ meant in relation with the role as kurogo. He does not believe interpreters are invisible. On the contrary, Komatsu feels an interpreter is bound to be a visible presence. And yet, he is very much against the notion of a mediator, or a ‘cultural clarifier.’ An interpreter should be ‘a machine,’ he maintained, ‘but a good machine,’ as he described himself. In Goffman (1981)’s ‘participation framework’ (see the beginning of this chapter), the notion of hearer is distinguished between a ‘ratified’ participant and a not ratified ‘eavesdropper’ or ‘overhearer.’ The presence of an interpreter becomes rather ambiguous in this framework. In the two-party conversation, the interpreter acts as a ratified ‘unaddressed recipient,’ but at times gives the impression of being an ‘eavesdropper’ listening to the conversation with a purpose to translate. Nishiyama, for instance, mentioned that he made it a rule to look away from the speaker so that the speaker would talk to the ‘addressed recipient.’ The task of the interpreter is further complicated when s/he becomes the speaker, which Goffman analyzes into three roles: ‘animator,’ ‘author’ and ‘principal.’ Nishiyama, as an interpreter, might fit the ‘animator’ role in Goffman’s term, clearly speaker-conscious, especially when he was translating for Reischauer. From what he narrated, we can surmise his goal to be a transparent and invisi ble animator. Komatsu likewise can be considered an ‘animator,’ with his insistence on faithful, ‘objective and neutral’ translation. However, his focus on immediate communicative events at times forces him out of invisibility. And although he considers himself as a ‘visible machine,’ faithful not necessarily to the speaker as a person but to the ‘original text,’ at times he played the ‘author’ role, as in the case when he ‘softened’ the excessive modesty of Prime Minister Obuchi. Muramatsu, despite his claim of invisibility, in his interpreting practice in the case of the ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ was not strictly an ‘animator.’ To be sure, he intended to act as ‘animator,’ to speak as Nakasone would if he were speaking in English, but when he made the decision to choose the word ‘unsinkable’ instead of ‘big,’ inadvertently he shifted his footing to the ‘author.’ Sohma, too, shifted her footing between ‘animator’ and ‘author’ when she interpreted. She did not hesitate to admit that she would ‘edit’ when necessary, clearly focusing on the receptor, as when she interpreted for Ichimada Hayato, to have the listener understand the message in order to achieve the purpose of interpreted events. At the same time, however, she placed utmost importance on ‘empathy’ with the speaker, feeling what the speaker feels as the interpreter’s own, which implies an interpreter acting as ‘animator.’


Kunihiro is an unusual case of an interpreter acting as a ‘principal’ in his ‘keren interpreting,’ very much visible, and clearly listener-oriented, but for the benefit of the speaker. Notwithstanding his unorthodox performance, Kunihiro is fully aware of the canon of interpreting and admits the norm should be that of the interpreter acting as kurogo. Clearly, interpreters shift the role, depending on the context or the situation where the interpreting practice takes place. To use Goffman’s term, they shift their ‘footing.’ According to Goffman, ‘footing’ entails participant’s ‘alignment, or set, or stance, or posture, or projected self ’ and a change in footing implies: A change in the alignment we take up to ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance. A change in our footing is another way of talking about a change in our frame for events. […] participants over the course of their speaking constantly change their footing, these changes being a persistent feature of natural talk. (1981: 128)

The narratives of the five interpreters are a testimony to what actually happens in interpreting, where interpreters constantly change their footing, and these changes reflect the reality of interpreting as a socially situated practice.

5.7

Conclusion

This chapter on the interpreting practice of the five pioneers illuminated the gap between interpreters’ perception about the role of interpreters and its reality. With some variations, the narratives of the pioneers showed that they believed in the traditional norms and ethics about the role interpreters are expected to play. And yet, careful analysis of their narratives revealed that for each interpreted event, the interpreter was clearly an autonomous presence, making decisions from a number of choices and options on his/her own. An important revelation was that the pioneers’ narratives demonstrated that, notwithstanding their belief in the canon of interpreting ethics and norms, their perceptions about the interpreters’ role vary with significant shades and degrees. There is clearly a need to differentiate usages of clichés that are so often associated with interpreting, such as ‘transparent,’ ‘invisible’ and in Japanese context, ‘kurogo’ or ‘kuroko.’ These common descriptions tend to be used as meaning virtually the same, and yet, the pioneer interpreters distinguished among these words, positing that these words are not necessarily synonymous but that there might be some differences in meaning between ‘transparent,’ ‘invisible’ and ‘kurogo.’ An invisible kurogo, for example, may not be ‘transparent,’ and words ‘visible’ and ‘machine’ are not contradictory when used for interpreters.


Based on the insights offered by the five interpreters, in the following chapter, attempts will be made to look into interpreting practice and the role of interpreters drawing on the study by Claudia Angelelli, and see how her findings would relate to diplomatic interpreters in Japan.

chapter 6

Insights

The life stories of the five pioneer conference/diplomatic interpreters offer us insights into diverse dimensions of interpreting as a practice and the interpreters as professionals as well as human beings. What probably is the most significant is their diversity. The habitus for each one of the five interpreters differs distinctly. The field of their interpreting likewise varies, with some overlap of course. The practice of each interpreter varies considerably and their perception of the role of the interpreter is distinctive. Angelelli (2004a) draws on Bourdieu and contends that interpreting, like other things in the world, does not happen in a ‘social vacuum’ and that interpreting is definitely a ‘socially-situated practice.’ The narratives of the five pioneers, both implicitly and explicitly, demonstrate that interpreting is indeed a communicative event reflecting the persona of not only the speaker but also the interpreter, as well as their relationship. This chapter will attempt to synthesize the life stories of the five interpreters foregrounding the perception of the role of interpreters and the actual practice, with a particular focus on the comparison with the findings in Claudia Angelelli’s study.

6.1

The role of interpreters

The discussion of the role of interpreters inevitably involves issues of ethics, norms, even identity (see Hale 2005; Mason 2005; Cronin 2006). R. Bruce W. Anderson, in his seminal paper in 1976, exploring interpreting as a social activity in intercultural interaction, pointed out the ‘ambiguities and conflicts of the interpreter role.’ Moira Inghilleri identified interpreters as somebody placed in what Bourdieu called ‘zones of uncertainty in social space’ (2005a: 70). Franz Pöchhacker acknowledges that ‘interpreters are subject to certain expectations held by participants in the interaction and in society at large’ and as such, the notion of ‘role’ is pivotal to the analysis of interpreters and it has now become ‘an integral part of professional code of ethics and practice’ (2004: 147). Nishiyama, in his narrative about the Minister of Agriculture (see Section 5.1), stated that he would have translated Kono Ichiro’s ‘tanka’ as it was, close to an ultimatum, had he realized it was Kono’s intention, despite the double-bind


situation he was placed in where he ran the risk of being blamed for having made the American counterpart angry. Kondo Masaomi,89 a Japanese-English conference interpreter, basically holds a similar view: Even if the two parties failed to agree or, in the extreme case, started a war, if this was based on the full understanding of the discussion on both sides, it would be in the end much better than false peace based on misunderstanding, because when the false impression is corrected, the result would be worse.Therefore, the interpreter should not be blamed for the initial, undesirable consequences. (personal communication, March 25, 2006)

On the other hand, Nagata Sae90 explains that for interpreters in Chinese, ‘the raison d’etre for the profession is clearly to become a bridge for the friendship between the two countries’ such as Japan and China: Interpreters, often called ‘Xiaowaijiaoguan (little diplomats)’ in China, are deemed professionals who serve the ultimate goal of promoting friendly international relations. Hence, if an interlocutor said something which might undermine this ultimate cause, interpreters are not expected to translate faithfully to the original, since achieving the overall objective of friendly relations is more important than individual expressions. (personal communication, March 25, 2006)

On the interpreters’ role, Muramatsu listed as one of the qualities of an interpreter, the ability ‘to be content to work backstage as a kurogo.’ In principle, all five pioneer interpreters agreed that interpreters should be kurogo, the supposedly invisible help in kabuki (see Chapter 1). However, in practice, subtle differences appear depending on the context, and more importantly, the understanding of the meaning of kurogo is not necessarily uniform (see Chapter 5). For Komatsu, kurogo is not synonymous with ‘invisibility.’ In his view, interpreters should act as kurogo, and yet they cannot escape from visibility. Komatsu took issue with such terms as ‘invisibility’ and ’transparency,’ pointing out he was not sure how they tie in with the concept of kurogo, while Nishiyama and Muramatsu seemed to take it for granted that interpreters should be kurogo and become transparent. Kunihiro basically agreed that an interpreter is an invisible kurogo existence, acknowledging that his keren interpreting was by no means the norm. Sohma did not seem 89. Kondo Masaomi is professor of economics at Daito University, and founding president of the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies (JAIS). 90. Nagata Sae is assistant professor at Dokkyo University, a Japanese-Chinese conference interpreter, and a JAITS council member.

Chapter 6. Insights 155

to be interested in the debate over visible/invisible issue. What weighed more to her was her belief that interpreting is not simply a job, but a ‘calling.’ To Sohma, whether an interpreter is kurogo is not so much an issue as the interpreter’s perception of the purpose of the work. The crucial question for Sohma is why you interpret, for what purpose: As long as interpreters are aware of the objective of their mission, they are able to decide for themselves how they interpret. These seemingly contradictory statements, in the final analysis, could be considered a reflection of the discrepancy between the prescribed norm or ethics and the reality of interpreters at work.

6.1.1 Interpreter Interpersonal Role Inventory In this section, findings by Claudia V. Angelelli (2004a) on the role of interpreters will be analyzed, contrasting them with the evidence obtained from the Japanese interpreters in the present study. Angelelli notes that the chief concern of most interpreter organizations has always been ‘accuracy’ and that training programs set an ‘unattainable goal’ for interpreters to relay accurate renditions of a message, resulting in a tension ‘between the prescribed and the actual role of the interpreter’ (13). This prompted her to design the Interpreter Interpersonal Role Inventory (IPRI), with the aim of exploring interpreters’ perceptions of their role, and to measure their attitudes towards the visibility/invisibility of their role. It is deemed worthwhile at this point to examine the result of IIRI and juxtapose them against the narratives of the five interpreters in Japan. 1. Is there a relationship between interpreters’ social backgrounds and their perceptions of visibility? Angelelli selected five factors for this question: self-identification with the dominant or subordinate group, gender, age, education and income, each of which will be studied below.

Self-identification with dominant or subordinate group Angelelli confirms ‘ interpreters’ aversion to blatant alignment with one of the parties’ (69), which corresponds with four of the five interpreters in the present study. With the exception of Kunihiro, who later in his career clearly aligned with Miki Takeo, the pioneers expressed the need for impartiality, as exemplified by Sohma’s statement, ‘Both sides are important.’ However, ‘self-identification with the dominant or subordinate group’ is, in reality, difficult to look into. The five people represent different social backgrounds,


such as Sohma born as a daughter of a prominent statesman, marrying a viscount, or Muramatsu born in the old downtown area of Tokyo where people didn’t have baths at home, speaking ‘commoner’s language,’ to use his own description. And it is not easy to see if they perceived the speakers and listeners as belonging to dominant or subordinate groups. In most cases in foreign relations, the parties involved both belong to dominant groups, prime ministers talking to presidents, or business leaders talking to each other. The reality with the pioneer interpreters in this study is that they are conference/diplomatic interpreters, not community interpreters, and if there was any power relationship involved in their interpreted communicative events, it was to do with defeated Japanese communicating with Americans in the immediate post-WWII period. Yet, even under such circumstances, the narratives of the interpreters show they did their best to stay neutral as is exemplified in Nishiyama interpreting between the Occupation Forces and the Japanese government (see Chapter 5).

Gender On gender, Angelelli found that ‘male and female interpreters do not perceive their role differently’ (69). None of the four male interpreters in the study brought up the issue of gender, although Komatsu in his book wrote about the increase of women in the profession, overcoming the gender bias held by some government officials. Sohma, as the first female simultaneous interpreter in Japan, admitted having faced gender bias, and recalled her frustration when she was not even given a chance to interpret when she visited the U.S. with Diet members, or was not allowed to go inside a meeting place in Korea, all because of her being a woman. Aside from Sohma’s passing remark about women possibly being more suited for interpreting, the question of gender in relation with the perception of the interpreters’ role was never taken up, and no difference was detected in this regard between the male interpreters and the female interpreter in this study, although of course more in-depth research is in order in this area. Age On the factor of age, Angelelli discovered that the older participants perceived themselves as being less visible, which is consistent with the invisibility tendencies identified in the five interpreters. The pioneers all belong to the oldest age bracket of over 69 in Angelelli’s study, their ages at the time of the interview being 92 for Nishiyama and Sohma, 73 for Muramatsu and Kunihiro, and 69 for Komatsu. The five interpreters under study are first-generation simultaneous interpreters in Japan, and as such, none of them received formal training. As Kunihiro described it,


they are virtually ‘self-made carpenters’ who acquired the skill on the job. In addition, Nishiyamja and Sohma were both heavily influenced by the first-generation conference interpreters in Europe, who interpreted so naturally that ‘you feel as though the person is really speaking that language’ (Sohma). As Angelelli notes, ‘only in the last fifteen years has a school of thought emerged which characterizes interpreters as co-participants to the interaction and problematizes the notion of neutrality’ (69–70), and the results of her study, possibly an indication of this newer trend, show the beliefs of younger interpreters different from senior interpreters who were trained under the old school of thought that prescribed invisibility. The situation may not be the same in Japan where the invisibility norm is still prevalent even in community interpreting. This will be discussed in Question 3.

Education and income On education and income, it is reported that ‘the level of formal education (not limited to the field of interpreting) was not related to the interpreter perception of visibility,’ but the participants with higher incomes tended to perceive themselves as being less visible (70). The element of income was not addressed in the present study, although admittedly, as high-profile interpreters who publish and lecture extensively, it is easily imagined that they enjoy higher incomes than do average interpreters. As for education received, Nishiyama has a master’s degree in electrical engineering, and Kunihiro majored in cultural anthropology. Muramatsu took an undergraduate evening course in English and American literature at a private university in Tokyo, while Komatsu graduated from a national university specializing in foreign languages. Sohma is the only one who did not attend university, because ‘universities would not accept women back then,’ and she ‘absolutely had no intention of entering a women’s college,’ which was what women were supposed to do before the war. In summary, on the first question of whether a relationship exists between interpreters’ social backgrounds and their perceptions of visibility, as far as the five interpreters under study are concerned, no significant relationship was observed between their social backgrounds and their perceptions of visibility, except for their age and for their being pioneers in the field. 2. Where do interpreters from different settings fall on the continuum of visibility/invisibility for interpreter perception of role? The findings were that ‘medical interpreters ranked highest in the continuum of perception of visibility, followed by court and then conference interpreters’ (71).


What is of special interest, in her analysis, is that although conference interpreters perceived themselves as the least visible, the high end of the range extends beyond the mid-point of the scale, demonstrating that ‘not all conference interpreters perceived themselves as invisible’ (71). In accordance with Angelelli’s findings, the five conference interpreters in this study varied in their perception of visibility, although most of them believed in the prescribed invisibility as the basic principle of conference interpreting. This is understandable when you think that conference interpreters, especially when rendering simultaneous interpreting in a booth, are physically remote and invisible from participants. However, conferences are not the only settings they work in – they perform consecutive interpreting of lectures or speeches at press conferences, or in faceto-face communication for diplomatic negotiations, which is all part of the work of ‘conference interpreters.’ In other words, conference interpreters deal with both monologues and dialogues, simultaneous mode as well as consecutive, remote (invisible in a booth) and close (visible beside the speaker), public in most cases but at times private, as in secret meetings between politicians. As is shown in the life stories of the five interpreters, it would be a mistake to assume that conference interpreters are always in a booth, working solely on monologues. Rather, the communicative situations they are involved in can be quite varied, encompassing conference, diplomatic and even broadcast/media interpreting, as in the Apollo space broadcasts which all except Sohma experienced. It is not surprising, then, that they varied in their perceptions of visibility. A careful look at the narratives of the five interpreters showed differences in their perceptions of visibility, in order of perhaps, highest with Kunihiro, followed by Sohma, Komatsu, Muramatsu, and the lowest with Nishiyama. Nevertheless, this ordering is based on their statements about their perceptions on the role of interpreters, and their actual performances might be different, as in the case of Komatsu ‘softening’ the prime minister’s talk, or Nishiyama, at times acting with his speaker, the U.S. ambassador, in what he called a ‘duo stand-up comedy’ (see Chapter 5). 3. Do interpreters from different settings differ in their perception of role? Angelelli discovered that the differences in perception of visibility were most significant between medical and court/conference groups, while the differences between the conference and court groups were not significant. She attributes this result to the private and public nature of the settings, explaining a doctor-patient encounter would be more of a private nature with no audience present and with fewer regulated behaviors (72–73).


This result, along with the findings on the previous question that medical interpreters91 ranked higher on the continuum of perception of visibility than court or conference interpreters, differs from what community interpreters in Japan have to say. The concept of interpreters as co-participants or their possible role in ‘advocacy’ is a radical notion in Japan, with the norm of neutrality taken for granted in community interpreting. According to Mizuno Makiko,92 since community interpreting in Japan has been strongly influenced by the United States code of ethics in court interpreting, the impartiality norm is considered a given, not yet an issue in professional sphere, with academic discussion just emerging.93 As a practising interpreter and a researcher specializing in community interpreting, Mizuno considers neutrality of paramount importance as the basis for accuracy (personal communication, March 23 and 29, 2006). Oshimi Takayuki,94 a medical interpreter and instructor, also asserts that in addition to medical knowledge, ‘ethics such as confidentiality and neutrality’ are crucial for medical interpreting, arguing that the basis for medical interpreting is ‘add nothing, subtract nothing, change nothing’ (Yamamoto, The Asahi Shimbun, January 24, 2006). However, the notion of professional ethics varies in different settings, as suggested by a body of current research (Angelelli 2004a, 2004b; Hale 2005; Harris 1990; Hyang-Ok Lim 2004; Chesterman 1997, 2001; Pym 2001), especially noticeable between court and business interpreting (Pinkerton 1996). According to Nagata Sae, for interpreters in Chinese the ultimate purpose of interpreting is more important than the ethics of neutrality or faithfulness, and for in-house staff interpreters in Japanese-Chinese, it is imperative to give advice on cultural or social matters to facilitate better communication among participants, if necessary,

91. For the study of medical interpreting, see Angelelli (2004b), Bot (2003), Wadensjő (2001) and Mesa (2000), among others. 92. Mizuno Makiko is professor at Kinjou Gakuin University, chief of the JAITS special interest group for community interpreting, and president of Nihon Eigo Iryo Tsûyaku Kyokai (J.E.=Japan Association for Health Care Interpreting in Japanese/English), established in 2006. 93. For example, JAITS(Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies), the only academic association in Japan devoted to the study of interpreting and translation, held a series of symposia on community interpreting in 2005 and 2006. 94. Oshimi Takayuki, assistant professor at Nihon University School of Medicine, studied medical interpreting in Canada and the U.S., and became a medical interpreter and trainer in Japan. He helped establish J.E. as an executive member.


editing inappropriate statements to avoid conflicts, and the criteria for evaluating an interpreter is not based on linguistic competence or interpreting skills, but on the successful outcome of the negotiation (personal communication, March 25. 2006). This is close to what Komatsu introduced as a new type of business interpreters – ‘cultural clarifiers.’ With the study of community interpreting fast developing in Japan, it will be interesting to see if shifts occur in the expectations of the role of interpreters. Also, it would be important to examine if Angelelli’s findings about medical interpreters have anything to do with the amount of professional training received. Hale (2005: 26) argues that ‘studies have been conducted, for the most part, on the practice of untrained interpreters and therefore can only tell us what is happening but not what should be happening.’ Unlike conference interpreters who are usually educated in training programs, community interpreters are not required to be trained, and in some countries, even accredited (ibid.: 16). Natural or lay interpreters, often family members or close friends, are commonly seen in community settings, and in Japan, volunteer or ‘goodwill’ interpreters, without proper training and payment, are proliferating, in some cases becoming institutionalized as such without due consideration to professionalization. Respondents in Angelelli’s research likewise show lower percentage of education among community interpreters (5.5% for court and 11% for medical) as compared to conference interpreters (26%). It is likely that the training and education, or the lack of it, would influence the perceived notion of the interpreter’s role, thus affecting the result of the study. What is critical in any argument about role definition is ‘the consequences of the chosen role’ (Hale 2005: 26). Oshimi likewise warns of the consequences, explaining that editing the utterances of patients to make them more logical and easier to understand, for example, might run the risk of doctors overlooking some psychological malaise (Yamamoto 2006). In the final analysis, Angelelli notes that ‘interpreters in all settings perceived themselves as having some degree of visibility.’ She sees this as meaning to some extent interpreters perceived that they play a role in building trust, facilitating mutual respect, communicating affect as well as message, explaining cultural gaps, controlling the communication flow, and/or aligning with one of the parties to the interaction in which they participate (82). As we have seen, the five pioneers do not necessarily fit this overall picture Angelelli portrayed, although their narratives showed that ‘the settings in which interpreters work place constraints on their behaviors and practices’ (ibid.).


6.1.2 Conference interpreters Among the findings in Angelelli’s research, of particular relevance for the present study would be the unsolicited comments in the responses to the questionnaire, mostly from conference interpreters who felt the questionnaire did not apply to them (77). Angelelli categorized the data based on three topics: invisibility and neutrality, differences according to settings, and lack of power differential.

Invisibility and neutrality On the question of invisibility and neutrality, Angelelli notes that ‘comments underscored complete neutrality on the part of the interpreter’ (78), exemplified by such comments as: ‘A conference interpreter has the duty to be completely neutral;’ ‘A consecutive interpreter, doing political work, has to be very careful to be neutral;’ ‘An interpreter at whatever level is invisible’ (78–79). Citing such comments, Angelelli maintains that the myth of the invisibility and neutrality of the interpreter ‘appears to be real,’ and that ‘Even though empirical research in interpreting studies has demonstrated flaws in the conduit model, many practitioners continue to live by unfounded rules’ (ibid.). Alex Krouglov (2004), a diplomatic interpreter and instructor at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in UK, substantiates this view in his description of diplomatic interpreting as observing ‘impartiality,’ ‘invisibility’ and ‘confidentiality.’ It is true that the five interpreters in the study share the general feeling of their counterparts that ‘interpreters take neutrality for granted, seeing it as their duty’ (79). The question here is how they came to feel that way. In Angelelli’s view, the comments reflect ‘the professional ideology that remains unchallenged and is shared between professional associations and practitioners’ (ibid.), implying the interpreters’ perceptions have been dictated by the professional organization’s code of ethics. However, in the case of the five pioneers, they did not receive full-fledged training in interpreting, let alone in professional ethics. Nishiyama and Sohma first tried simultaneous interpreting in 1950, three years prior to the founding of AIIC in 1953. Although all five of them knew about AIIC, they are not its members. More important, AIIC presents the “Code of Professional Ethics” foregrounding secrecy, confidentiality, collegiality and intergrity, without specifying what constitutes an ethical interpreting or due professionalism in conference interpreting (Diriker 2004: 30), and does not discuss the role definition or neutrality issue, although some references are made as to how professionals should interpret, including identification of the interpreter with the speaker, in other sections on their


website (ibid.: 30–33). Kondo Masaomi lectures on the professional code of ethics, especially on confidentiality, at least once a year in the post-graduate conference interpreting program he established, and yet he testifies that as a member of AIIC, he does not recall having received any specific instruction from this international professional body on the code of ethics such as neutrality, the role of interpreters or interpreting norms, and remembers hardly any discussion on the issue with European colleagues (personal communication, March 23, 2006). Nishiyama was impressed observing European interpreters at work, finding that their interpreting principles were basically the same as his own: ‘We don’t listen to the words. We listen to the information.’ Sohma was likewise impressed with the naturalness of interpreting by European conference interpreters, and remembered their advice given mainly on her interpreting performance. Yet, neither of them recalled discussing professional ethics. The three interpreters trained at the U.S. Department of State testified that the nominal training they received was either very basic exercises or general knowledge on the United States. Many of their trainers were not even interpreters themselves. In fact, the only professional Muramatsu recalled was a diplomatic interpreter in French, who mainly told them about delivery and performance. Kondo, who was trained later in the same program, from the summer of 1963 to the autumn of 1964, likewise did not recall any instructions given on impartiality or neutrality during the 3-week training at the U.S. Department of State. Notwithstanding, in his interpreting at ILO conferences, what was utmost on his mind was to convey the speaker’s message as best as he could, accurately conveying the points of the criticisms when the Japanese government was criticized, believing it his duty to serve Japan’s ultimate interest, if not to its immediate benefits (personal communication, March 22–24, 2006). Kondo’s statement is fundamentally in accordance with the evidence collected in the present study. Without explicit instruction or mandate from professional institutions, the pioneers uphold neutrality and impartiality as the guiding principle for their interpreting. The narratives of the pioneers in Japan suggest, then, that there should be something more involved in formulating interpreters’ beliefs, and that their perception of the professional norm of neutrality is not simply imposed by codes of ethics prescribed by professional organizations. The interpreters’ role, including professional ethics and norms, is certainly much more complex than it seems.

Differences according to settings Angelelli reports that conference interpreters ‘seem to feel that the booth shelters them from the three-party communicative process and that they are not actually an essential participant to this process’ (79–80), which in her view is contradictory


to what they state about their job ‘to facilitate communication,’ and wonders, ‘How can an interpreter facilitate communication without interacting with clients?’ (80). To this, the probable answer from most of the conference interpreters would be, ‘How can we interact, when we are interpreting simultaneously in a booth?’ The problem here seems to be that the term ‘interaction’ is conceptualized differently by the researcher and the respondents. To many simultaneous interpreters working in a booth, separated from the speaker, it is almost natural for them to feel that it is physically impossible to ‘interact’ with their clients. In the simultaneous mode of interpreting, they cannot afford the time, for example, to ‘interrupt an interpretation to educate the parties on cultural differences’ (104) or ‘to present my own voice during the interaction’ (105). This does not mean, however, that conference interpreters do not try to facilitate communication. They do, as was testified by life-stories of the five pioneers. However, as Komatsu stated, even though he and his team of interpreters were treated as ‘insiders’ by the Japanese delegation, participating in briefings, ‘interacting with clients,’ once they started interpreting, they did their best to stay ‘objective’ and ‘neutral’ with the aim of facilitating communication between the two parties. While Komatsu added that in community interpreting, some kind of intervention might be called for, he made it clear that in conference interpreting, ‘it’s a taboo,’ and that conference interpreters must be faithful to the ‘source language text.’

Awareness of power differentials On the final point of lack of awareness regarding power differentials between interlocutors, Angelelli notes that some conference interpreters appear to be unaware of power differentials between the interlocutors with whom they work and that to them, heads of state are heads of state, regardless of whether the country is in the first or third world, concluding that ‘communication does happen in a social vacuum for these respondents’ (80). With the pioneers in Japan, they were clearly aware of the social factors or power differentials taking place in communication, as was demonstrated in the strong reaction of Sohma when she scolded her daughter for her interpreting of a speech by a delegate from South Vietnam. When Komatsu was interpreting for the negotiations aimed at the return of Okinawa, or when Nishiyama was interpreting for an agricultural meeting between the two countries, Japan obviously had less power, confronting the powerful United States, and it is hard to imagine that Japanese interpreters were unaware of the power differentials and practised their interpreting work in a ‘social vacuum.’ The reality, judging from the narratives, would be, they were well aware of the power differentials, and yet despite their awareness of social factors, they tried their best to remain neutral.


Conference and court One final issue is worth studying here, which is to do with the difference between conference and court interpreters. Angelelli found that statistically significant differences existed between the two in ‘communication rules’ and ‘culture.’ The results are attributed to the differences between the dialogic or monologic nature of settings, assuming that court interpreters, with more frequency of interactions than conference interpreters, ‘may have to set more communication rules and take into account interlocutors’ cultural backgrounds’ (73). This raises a fundamental question of what is meant by the word ‘dialogic.’ It is necessary to remember that when Bakhtin discusses dialogism, he is not simply talking about dialogues between interlocutors as in conversation. Dialogism for Bakhtin is ‘a constant interaction between meanings’ (1981: 426), the speech experience of each individual in the broadest sense, something that is in ‘continuous and constant interaction with others’ individual utterances’ (1986:89), and therefore, our speech, or our utterances, are ‘filled with others’ words, with varying degrees of otherness or varying degrees of “our-own-ness”’ (ibid.). In other words, when the dichotomy proposed by Wadensjö (1998) is discussed, differentiating monologic ‘talk as text’ from dialogic ‘talk as social activity,’ drawing on Bakhtin’s dialogism, we should not confuse it with monologic nature of conference interpreting as opposed to dialogue interpreting. Rather, it can be argued that even when conference interpreters are interpreting for a speech or a lecture, a monologue, not a dialogue, it is not isolated from dialogism in Bakhtin’s sense, that however monologic the utterance may be, it is filled with ‘dialogic overtones’ (Bakhtin 1986: 92), related to the past utterances by others, at the same time affected by subsequent and anticipated responses by addressees, carrying ‘dialogic reverberations’ (ibid.: 94). Bakhtin notes that what is written or what is spoken by one individual ‘reflects not just this person’s consciousness, but it invokes also the perspectives and voices of the diversity of other consciousnesses, from different cultures and times’ (ibid.: 18). If that is the case, we can surmise that interpreters in any setting, whether at conferences or courts, are placed in the middle of such intricate interaction of people’s stories, texts, and utterances, working on the ‘multiple voices by which languages live and develop’ (ibid.). 6.2

Cultural issues for interpreters

One striking thing noticed in the interviews was that the five interpreters did not respond as enthusiastically as was expected when asked how they learned cultural literacy and how they tackled cultural differences when they were interpreting.


Except for Komatsu who was articulate in his opposition to interpreters acting as ‘cultural clarifiers,’ the other interpreters showed not the least interest in the topic, a striking contrast with their enthusiasm in talking about language and language learning. This was puzzling in light of the fact that interpreters are considered to be bicultural (Snell-Hornby et al. 1997), and translation has long been regarded as ‘cultural assimilation’ (Eco 2004: 89). Discussing whether a translation should lead the reader to understand the linguistic and cultural universe of the source text, or transform the original by adapting it to the reader’s cultural and linguistic universe, Umberto Eco proposes the notion of ‘translation as negotiation’ (2004: 89, 100). However, not one subject in the study took the initiative to discuss negotiating culture in interpreting, even Kunihiro, who introduced Edward T. Hall to Japan by translating his seminal work The Silent Language (1959, trans. into Japanese in 1966) and who translated the term ‘intercultural communication’ into Japanese.95 When asked about difficulties in bridging cultural differences, Sohma denied that she had experienced any difficulty in filling in cultural gaps, since she grew up in an environment where she ‘did not feel the difference between Japanese and English.’ Likewise, Nishiyama had little to say on culture except for the fact that he learned it from living in two cultures, which is an amazing contrast with his lengthy account of his experiences of learning the two languages. Just like Sohma, Nishiyama responded that since he had lived in both societies, becoming ‘bicultural sort of came just by experience.’ He did add, however, that he learned much about Japanese culture from his colleagues who used to take him out for walks during lunch break, to ‘explain things like Japanese legends and society.’ Also, Nishiyama remembers being taught the Japanese way of behaving in a Japanese workplace, although he didn’t perceive it as learning culture. When Japanese-American Nishiyama started to work, he was assigned to the library to study the Japanese language (see Chapter 3). After a few months, Nishiyama started to feel uneasy and asked one of his colleagues, ‘I am very worried, you know. I feel guilty receiving a salary for doing something like this.’ And the reply was, ‘Don’t worry. Just do whatever you are told to do. That’s the Japanese way.’ When asked how he reconciled cultural differences or overcame cultural barriers in interpreting, Nishiyama simply answered, ‘Well, I cannot say I recall such an incident. Fortunately, I did not encounter such difficult situations’ and 95. Kunihiro, in translating Hall (1966), used the term ‘ibunka-kan ni okeru komyunikeishon’ for intercultural communication. Kato Hidetoshi, one of the earliest scholars to introduce the field in Japan, recalls that Kunihiro discussed with him how the term ‘intercultural communication’ should be translated into Japanese and settled on ‘ibunka-kan komyunikeishon’ (Torikai 2006a: 24).


although he admitted he had several occasions where he made misinterpretations in this regard, he was not able to come up with specific examples. One plausible reason for this is that the meaning of ‘culture’ in the question was too broad. As Komatsu commented, they might have felt culture was something ‘elusive’ – not specific enough to discuss. This is understandable, since culture is an intriguing concept and when we begin to think about the definition given and consider what it implies, culture becomes ‘a prodigious and commanding notion’ (Samovar, Porter and Jain 1981: 24). American anthropologists Alfred Louis Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn in 1952 compiled a list of 164 definitions of culture. It is no exaggeration to say that the definition of culture itself has long been a topic for academic debates. One of the oldest definitions of culture is offered by the English anthropologist Edward Barnett Tylor in 1871: ‘Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.’ Since then, multiple definitions appeared regarding the concept of culture. One example is Fons Trompenaars (1997) who defined culture in three layers; the outer layer of artefacts and products, the middle layer of norms and values, and basic assumptions as the core. Geert Hofstede (1991) used the metaphor of ‘skin of an onion’ to define culture, to demonstrate superficial and deeper layers of culture, with values at the center. Edward T. Hall (1952) popularized ‘The Iceberg Theory,’ explaining that the most important part of culture is hidden and what can be seen is just the tip of the iceberg. Hall (1982) later presented an extended model of a ‘Triad of Culture,’ dividing culture into technical, formal and informal or out-of awareness culture. From a post-colonial perspective, Bhabha (1994: 38) warns of ‘the exoticism of multiculturalism or the diversity of cultures’ (emphasis in original) and proposes instead an ‘international culture’ based on the ‘inscription and articulation of culture’s hybridity.’ This ‘inter’ is important, because ‘it is the ‘inter’ – the cutting edge of translation and negotiation, the in-between space – that carries the burden of the meaning of culture’ (ibid.). The in-between space is what Bhabha terms a Third Space, which has led scholars in different disciplines to explore the third space approach, despite its ambivalent and complex nature, in language teaching and intercultural communication studies (Kelly 2006: 31–34). Kramsch (2005), for instance, talks about ‘cultural third space’ in her discussion on cultural literacy (more on this later in the section). Another possibility for the pioneers’ seeming indifference to culture could be the words ‘cultural differences’ or ‘cultural barriers’ were not conceived as such, and what the interviewer meant was subsumed as a problem of ‘language and communication.’ It might be surmised that when the subjects talked about


language and communication, culture was already a part of it, without being explicitly mentioned, or it could be that for interpreters, ‘culture’ is so much a part of their life that it cannot be treated as a separate issue. It is true that ‘Culture is communication’ (Hall 1959/1973: 97), and ‘what we talk about and how we talk about it is for the most part determined by the culture in which we have lived’ (Samovar et al. 1981: 25). Wadensjö (1998) contends that the very question of culture, separated from language issues, represents monological, talk-as-text view of interpreting. It may be that without even realizing it, the five interpreters took a dialogic view of language and culture, and treated culture not separately but as part of communicative interactions taking place in interpreting practice. To prove this point, the narratives of the pioneers demonstrate their life stories rich with cultural experiences, as Nishiyama’s learning Japanese culture. Many of the stories told were none other than the reflections of cultural issues in the interviewer’s mindset, as in the case of Nishiyama not having been able to detect the anger that was contained in Kono Ichiro’s statement vis-à-vis American Secretary of Agriculture Freeman (see Chapter 5). Nishiyama cited another example as the issue of ‘prior knowledge’ which the author would categorize as an issue of language and culture: When U.S. Ambassador to Japan Robert Ingersoll (1971–1973) went on an inspection tour, some Japanese said, ‘Watashi-tachi wa 8 nin kyodai desu,’ which I translated as ‘We’re eight brothers.’ As the conversation went on, this Japanese started to talk about ‘watashi no imouto’ (my younger sister) or ‘watashi no ane’ (my elder sister). I had to ask, then, ‘I thought you said eight brothers, but do you also have sisters?’ The answer was, ‘Among the eight, I have one elder sister and two younger sisters.’ The Japanese word ‘kyodai’ (brothers) includes sisters, too, which makes it confusing to interpreters. Not very many Japanese say ‘kyodai shimai’ (brothers and sisters). I had to quickly change the gender of my translation into English. Naturally, the Ambassador harbored some doubts about my interpreting. Therefore, I had to add some explanation about the Japanese language. That evening, at a dinner party, the Ambassador started to talk about ‘My brothers in New York,’ and I had to ask him, ‘Is this “brother” younger than you are? Or older?’ The Ambassador rebuffed and said, ‘What difference does that make?’ Thus, I was obliged to explain to him that in Japanese, you have to specify ‘ani (elder brother)’ or ‘otouto (younger brother).’ (1979: 67–68)

Muramatsu recounted an anecdote when he accompanied Ibuka Masaru, one of the founders of Sony, then Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering Corporation, to Silicon Valley, when it wasn’t called that yet, invited by an American electronics company. After touring the factory, the owner asked, ‘So what do you think, Mr. Ibuka? Why don’t we form a partnership?’ Ibuka, in a typically Japanese way,


didn’t give a definite answer on the spot and replied, ‘Yabusaka dewa nai,’ which is not a flat refusal, but not an active commitment either, leaving some ambiguity. Muramatsu recalls: When I interpreted this ambiguous expression, with a kind of double negative, I translated it into English literally; ‘I would not be unwilling to consider your proposal.’ Then that man…I still remember clearly…asked me, “What does he mean by that? What does he mean?” There were only three of us at the time, so I replied, “I don’t know. That’s what he said.” And I had no choice but to tell Mr. Ibuka, “He is saying that he doesn’t really understand what you mean.” Mr. Ibuka, then, looked at my face, grinned, and said, “Just tell him yabusaka dewa nai.” He probably didn’t want to say anything more, I think. So I said, “I repeat. Mr. Ibuka says, I would not be unwilling to consider.” He (the American) shrugged like this.

It was clear that the listener found it hard to understand Ibuka’s statement, but in this case, Muramatsu adhered to a foreignizing, source-oriented strategy, keeping the ambiguous statement as ambiguous. This is another example of culture reflected in language and communication. Muramatsu himself noted on the American who proposed a business partnership to Ibuka: Had he read Ruth Benedict96 or the like, he would have realized, “He is just avoiding giving an immediate answer, but it doesn’t mean there is no hope.” And he could have said something like, “Thank you. I will get in touch with you by writing.” And send him a letter later, or depending on the situation, say “I’ll be happy to come to Tokyo to talk further,” then who knows, he may have gotten a business deal. He knew too little. Mr. Ibuka used a vague expression, and so I reproduced his intent by interpreting it in a vague way. He (the American) had it coming for not studying Japanese ways. That’s what I think.

Among the five, only Kunihiro majored in cultural anthropology. Asked what motivated him to study this particular field, he started to talk about his first travel overseas to Hawaii as a delegate to the America-Japan Student Conference: For one thing, Hawaii is a unique place, as you know. So many different cultures, different races, different ethnic groups, different languages – Japanese is also widely used. It’s a place where many differences meet and cross – ‘heterogeneity.’ […] The fact that different cultures coexisted, and furthermore, rather peacefully, without much violence. I think it’s a place where they co-existed. Therefore, cultural anthropology, or comparative sociology and the like…I wanted to study these things in connection with Japan. 96. Cultural anthropologist and the author of The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (1946). Kunihiro lined up to buy the book when it was published in Japan in 1954, and remembers it caused an intense academic debate.


Although Kunihiro was not particularly enthusiastic about answering cultural questions, he summed up his experience of traveling around the United States with productivity teams as something akin to ethnography of the American society. The only time Komatsu associated ‘culture’ with his work was when he was talking about his interpreting for too modest Obuchi (see 5.2). He commented, ‘This could be a kind of difference in culture,’ adding that if the audience were Japanese, people would have appreciated this kind of modesty and humbleness. Notwithstanding, Komatsu was doubtful about the issue of culture throughout the interview. For instance, when asked how he became interested in American culture, he responded that he was never consciously aware of ‘culture’ or ‘the study of culture’ as such, although he was certainly interested in and learned about specific areas like American industry and management, politics, or music. He added, ‘You could sum up and call them “culture” I suppose. Nevertheless, I have never been aware of it as “culture.” In my opinion, culture is something quite elusive [emphasis added], and it is not always productive to perceive things as “culture”.’ Later on, Komatsu revealed why he was so doubtful about culture, when he started to talk about what he called ‘cultural clarifiers.’ According to Komatsu, ‘cultural clarifiers’ are business interpreters and cultural consultants combined. Rather than simply acting as interpreters, they give advice to their clients on how to express things and even what to say, and in Komatsu’s view, ‘This is where the pitfall is, for an interpreter to be stepping deeply into culture, and that’s part of the reason I say that you shouldn’t be too concerned about culture.’ The notion of ‘cultural clarifiers,’ as introduced by Komatsu, is close to what Katan (2004) calls a ‘cultural interpreter.’97 In Katan’s view, the interpreter’s role has been shifting from a discreet black box and a ‘walking generalist translator of words’ to a ‘cultural mediator,’ a visible third party and ‘a specialist in negotiating between cultures.’ The issue of culture and interpreting, as such, is directly connected to the discussion of the interpreter’s role – a linguistic conduit, a communication facilitator, or a bilingual/bicultural mediator. It is necessary at this point, then, to attempt to have a closer look at culture and its relationship with language, particularly in terms of interpreting. For this purpose, three models or concepts will be introduced in relation with the interpreter’s role: Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, Michael Byram’s notion of ‘intercultural competence,’ and Claire Kramsch’s ‘intercultural literacy’.

97. See also Mesa (2000) for the notion of cultural interpreter.


6.2.1 The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Katan (2004: 329–337) applied The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), created by Milton Bennett (1993), to translators and interpreters in the hope of understanding beliefs about translation, and also so that the introduction of culture for translators and interpreters can be organized in line with trainees’ levels of intercultural sensitivity. Bennett’s DMIS model charts the change in one’s reaction to ‘the other’ in six different stages, each representing a change in fundamental beliefs about self and the other. The six stages are categorized into two parts: ethnocentric stages (denial, defence, minimization) and ethnorelative stages (acceptance, adaptation, integration). Stage 1 ‘Denial’ is the initial reaction to the ‘other’ acting as if the ‘other’ did not exist as a separate world. Obviously, there is no competent interpreter at this level. Then in Stage 2 ‘Defence,’ we react to the gap between our expected world and the world we are dealing with, and the most natural reaction to difference in others’ behaviour, discourse patterns and value systems is to defend our own, because the threat is felt particularly at the level of core beliefs, regarding what is right, normal and correct. Applied to translation, Katan lists Lawrence Venuti and Peter Newmark at this stage, because they try to intervene to help the more vulnerable through translation and view the ‘other’ from a Defensive position. Stage 3 ‘Minimization’ is summarized as transcendent universalism, a belief in a single guiding plan for the universe. Katan places Danica Seleskovitch at this stage for her belief in general universal similarities despite obvious cultural differences, and Andrew Chesterman for his understanding of Grice’s Maxims to be universally applicable, with due respect to particular cultures. Katan points out further that a particular entrenched universal norm in the translating habitus is that meaning can be ‘transferred’ from one language to another, and this norm is actually unconsciously encoded at the European Union: translating and interpreting equals copying. The narratives of the five pioneers give the impression that they are at this stage, judging from their belief in the universal norm of transferring the meaning of the original text into another language. However, in practice, they are at Stage 4, becoming aware of the differences in communication styles. In Stage 4 ‘Acceptance,’ a major conceptual shift is seen from reliance on absolute, dualistic principles to an acknowledgement of non-absolute relativity, and people begin to recognize differences in communication style. This is where interpreters start to perceive that their ethnocentric model of the world is not the only one, and that text-based copying will not communicate the same message in different cultures, prompting them to include local contexts of situation and culture


in their model of the world, resulting in possible indirection, experimentation, and at times indecision. At Stage 5 ‘Adaptation,’ new skills to adapt to different world views are acquired and people now use knowledge to intentionally shift into a different frame of reference, from empathy to pluralism. This is where the discussion on the (in)visibility of translators starts, and the translator or interpreter can be considered bicultural, with a minimum set of two maps in one mind. Here again, the narratives of the five interpreters exemplify that they are at this stage with two sets of maps making them bicultural, especially Nisihiyama and Sohma. Finally, at Stage 6 ‘Integration,’ people do not simply have culture but they engage in it, and as the first step to integration, they attain the ability to analyze and evaluate situations from more than one cultural perspective. The translator/interpreter at this stage is not only able to mindshift and associate with both the source text and the target text, but is also able to take a third perceptual position. What this entails is that translators are now in a ‘meta-position,’ becoming fully aware that they are able to choose from multiple alternatives. With a definite identity change at this level, the translator/interpreter is now a ‘cultural interpreter or mediator’ endowed with a supra-cultural mission: to improve crosscultural cooperation. It is difficult to ascertain whether all five of the pioneers are at this final stage of integration. It is hard, because with the exception of Sohma, who openly acknowledged the need for interpreters to edit, other interpreters hailed the traditional interpreting ethics of non-intervention. However, casting a more careful look at their practices, we can conjecture that they made decisions in their interpreting from a number of alternatives, and they were keenly aware of their mission to help with improving intercultural communication. They were certainly not in favour of the notion of cultural interpreter and they may not have been conscious of their role as mediators. Nevertheless, there is no denying that they were at this final stage in their actual practice. Their narratives about professional beliefs make them look like they are at Stage 3, and yet, the analysis of their practices shows that they are at the rest of the stages as well. It may well be that the DMIS model is not quite suitable in analyzing professional interpreters, but is more suited for screening interpreting students and for their education to become professionals.

6.2.2 Intercultural competence/literacy Notwithstanding the seemingly indifferent or negative feelings about culture on the part of the pioneers, the reality of their interpreting practice calls for a need to shed light on the intricate relationship between language and culture. For ‘Language is the principal means whereby we conduct our social lives. When it is used


in contexts of communication, it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways’ (Kramsch 1998: 3). On the multicultural frontier, where many interpreters today work, the relationship between language and culture carries even greater weight, and the work of interpreting has to be revisited beyond the linguistic sphere, or even beyond Hymes’s ‘communicative competence’ (1972), and has to be placed in a wider context of culture. And ‘culture’ here is not confined to what Hirsch (1987) calls ‘cultural literacy,’ but rather, it can be described as the concept of ‘intercultural competence’ advocated by Byram (1997, 2001, 2003), or ‘intercultural literacy’ proposed by Kramsch (2005). ‘Intercultural competence’ (Byram et.al 2001: 5–7) is defined with the following components: 1. Intercultural attitudes (savoir être): curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own. 2. Knowledge (savoirs): of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction. 3. Skills of interpreting and relating (savoir comprendre): ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents or events from one’s own. 4. Skills of discovery and interaction (savoir apprendre/faire): ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and the ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real-time communication and interaction. 5. Critical cultural awareness (savoir s’engager): an ability to evaluate, critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries. Not surprisingly, all five subjects in the present study are equipped with these five components of intercultural competence. The pioneers are open and full of curiosity, are well versed in the two cultures, have excellent skills to interpret and relate, to discover and interact, and are endowed with critical cultural awareness. In sum, it can be safely assessed from their narratives that they are truly intercultural as professionals and mediators. In trying to explain the need for ‘intercultural literacy,’ Kramsch (2005: 19–31) defines modern society in three phases, (1) a bureaucratic society, (2) an entrepreneurial society, and (3) a global networked society. In a bureaucratic society, texts and authors are respected, and the efforts to discern authors’ intentions are valued. Literacy is seen as internalization of


history, the memory of a tradition to be passed on from generation to generation, and translation is considered the search for equivalences from one language to another. An entrepreneurial society is oriented toward the international market, where tensions between national and international interests take place in the technological, economic and cultural areas. In such a society, language is seen as interpersonal communication, as information to be exchanged in cross-cultural encounters between individuals, and literacy is defined as ‘a set of cognitive and social skills which operate in the expression, interpretation and negotiation of meaning between two interlocutors or between a text and its readers.’ While cultural literacy was the internalization of native speakers’ knowledge and competence, ‘intercultural literacy is the ability to make comparisons between the native and the foreign culture, to not only seek and identify differences, but to examine them critically.’ Kramsch articulates neither mode would be adequate in the global networked society, where ‘symbolic, historical, cultural and ideological values’ are assuming more importance. In such an age of global culture, intercultural literacy has to be understood in different ways, with ecological as well as transcultural perspectives. Intercultural literacy from an ecological perspective focuses on relativizing and contextualizing different people’s perceptions of history, including the understanding of how the connotations of words reflect the historical conditions in which they were used. Kramsch suggests, in conclusion, the need to find a ‘cultural third space,’ outside the domination of markets and national/ethnic communities. While the evidence offered by the pioneer interpreters is basically consonant with what Kramsch describes as ‘bureaucratic mode,’ a great deal of their stories reflect interpreting in the ‘entrepreneurial society,’ at times revealing further a glimpse of ecological and transcultural views for global networked society. It can be envisaged that this new outlook would have to come into play in future interpreters’ endeavours in intercultural encounters.

6.3

Conclusion

This chapter studied interpreting as a practice with a specific focus on the role of interpreters, including some thoughts on the issue of culture, synthesizing what has been learned from the narratives of the five interpreters. The in-depth analysis was carried out on Claudia Angelelli’s Interpreters Interpersonal Role Inventory, leading into some inherent issues concerning the role


of interpreters. Angelelli challenged the language conduit-invisible model of the interpreter, and argued that all parties to a conversation work together to construct and generate the meaning. Although the pioneers perceived their roles as more or less invisible, with different shades of opaqueness, their narratives testified that, in practice, they were indeed essential partners in intercultural communication. When they did not step in to overtly mediate as co-constructors of the interaction, it was their autonomous decision based on their own judgment. Perhaps Muramatsu best summarized the pioneers’ sentiments when he said that the interpreter as kurogo, ‘should not dance himself in the limelight. He can, however, help an actor on stage, by adjusting the hemline.’ The discussion on the critical issue of the role of interpreting, with some additional insights into a related issue of culture, will be followed by the final chapter to conclude. Chapter 7 will explore some future perspectives, based on the insights gained in the previous chapters, in an attempt to obtain an enhanced understanding of interpretating as a profession, and as a field of study.

chapter 7

Perspectives

The present study was undertaken to explore the presence of pioneer interpreters in Japanese contemporary history as individuals, feeling their own feelings, saying their own words. For this purpose, life-story interviews were conducted to listen to their voices – their own voices, not somebody else’s – and to see them for what they are, not as somebody ‘slipping into the skin of the man who was speaking, feeling his feelings, saying his words’ (Mydans 2005), but as somebody with his/ her own determination, will, and aspirations. In the final chapter, the findings will be reviewed, particularly the remaining questions, generated in the previous chapter, concerning the role of interpreters, suggesting areas for further exploration. The narratives of the five interpreters revealed that their respective habitus was varied, as well as their field of interpreting. Their practice of interpreting as socially situated communicative events, not surprisingly, differed significantly from one person to another, from one interpreted event to the other. As a consequence, their perceptions about their interpreting work varied with subtle individual differences. While Nishiyama was firm on the importance of the ‘transparency’ of interpreters, Komatsu was not so sure about their invisibility, and felt interpreters were more like ‘visible machines.’ Muramatsu insisted interpreters remain ‘kurogo,’ possibly permitted to adjust the hem of the main players, but nothing more, and try as best as they could to feel the speaker’s feelings and say his words. To Sohma, what was of utmost importance for interpreters was to do the work as ‘calling’ with empathy with the speaker. Kunihiro admitted having acted as ‘principal,’ which he labeled ‘keren interpreting,’ making it clear that it was by no means orthodox, and that he deviated from the norm. Although the pioneers invariably expressed the need to conform to the prescribed norm, their perceptions of what the norm entailed varied, and their narratives testified that each interpreter in each interpreted event engaged in a unique practice, adjusting to various social constraints and settings. Here, what Jean-Marc Gouanvic (2005: 158) states about translation could be applied to interpreting: Translation as a practice has little to do with conforming to norms through the deliberate use of specific strategies; in other words, it is not a question of


c onsciously choosing from a panoply of available solutions. Norms do not explain the more or less subjective and random choices made by translators who are free to translate or not to translate, to follow or not to follow the original closely. If a translator imposes a rhythm upon the text, a lexicon or a syntax that does not originate in the source text and thus substitutes his or her voice for that of the author, this is essentially not a conscious strategic choice, but an effect of his or her habitus [...].

Interpreters unintentionally testified in their narratives that notwithstanding their perceived norms, in practice, they made their own creative strategic choices, sometimes foreignizing, at times domesticating, changing their footing in their role as animator, author, and even principal, depending on the nature of the communicative event they were involved in. There is no denying the interpreters made ‘subjective and random choices’ in their interpreting strategies, presumably because of ‘an effect of his or her habitus’ (Gouanvic 2005). While their perceived role of interpreters varied, one thing is clear. The fact remains that the place of an interpreter is that of a third party, ‘the man in the middle,’ or an ‘in-between’ presence. It is almost inevitable that an interpreter participates in an interaction, becoming part of ‘triadic exchanges’ (Mason 2001) or a ‘communicative pas de trois’ (Wadensjö 1998), in a cultural Third Space (Bhabha 1994). Wadensjö thus proposed a ‘dialogic, interactionistic perspective’ (1998: 80) in Interpreting Studies, because as a third party, the presence of an interpreter always exerts some influence and affects the communication process (ibid.: 64). We have seen from the narratives of the interpreters that the practice of interpreting as interaction is never self-contained, and as a socially situated practice, interpreting cannot be considered in isolation from the constraints of the settings in which it occurs (Angelelli 2004a: 83). It seems unrealistic, then, to try to find some universal criteria for interpreting practice or to envisage some sort of a model for the interpreter’s role. Instead, there are a few questions that need to be addressed here. Firstly, granted the importance of considering the interpreter’s role as a coparticipant in triadic exchanges, how do we actually introduce this theoretical framework into the field? To analyze and study the interpreter’s role as a co-participant in an interaction is one thing. To materialize it in actual performances or in interpreter training is quite another. The presence and performance of interpreters in actual socio-cultural and interactional situations are more complex than we have come to think (Diriker 2004: 147), and the studies conducted so far can tell us what is happening, but ‘not what should be happening’ (Hale 2005: 26). Undoubtedly, interpreting as a profession, just as any profession, needs some basic point of reference for the interpreters’ role. What, then, would be a fundamental

Chapter 7. Perspectives 177

standard of behaviour for interpreters, if any? Is the unquestioned ‘honest spokesperson’ (Harris 1990) the only universal norm for the profession? The second question is related to the first one, and just as difficult to answer. How do interpreters come to perceive and internalize neutrality and invisibility as their norm in the first place? It is true that interpreters generally avoid siding with one or the other party, trying to stay neutral. Wadensjö offers an insightful observation that it is ‘in the self-interest of interpreters to be impartial’ (1998: 64). Kondo likewise comments that remaining impartial and staying more on the linguistic plane is a way of saving himself as a freelancer, since offering his own interpretation of the speaker’s intention might be too risky (personal communication, March 30, 2006). Yet, the question still remains as to how they come to learn this. Miriam Shlesinger similarly poses a basic question and asks: do interpreters (whether for a given language combination, or in a given country, or universally) attempt to follow some shared model of performance shaped by a set of norms which they have internalized (1989: 114)? In the field of translation, Lawrence Venuti (1995) documented the historical developments of (in)visibility of translation and translators, and Michael Cronin found that translators have become more visible in recent decades (2003: 43). In the interpreting field, the situation is somewhat different. Although similarly the active presence of the interpreter has become a dominant issue recently, in earlier days, the norms and ethics in current use did not even exist. For example, in the case of interpreters in the New World in the 16th century, their performances were far from being invisible or neutral. Doňa Marina, sometimes called Malinche, is a case in point. It is reported that Malinche was always in the company of Hernán Cortés, interpreting for his benefit, acting as his informant, which in the end led her to be perceived as the ultimate traitor, the collaborator who betrayed the indigenous peoples of the New World to the Spaniards (Karttunen 1994: 4; Baker 2001: xv), to such an extent that in Mexico the word ‘Malinchista’ is a term to abuse and used to refer to someone who sells out or betrays a cause (Baker 2001: xv). To be sure, Doňa Marina, as ‘La Lengua (‘the interpreter,’ literally meaning ‘the tongue’)’ (Karttunen 1994: 4), is an exceptional case – given away to Cortés, becoming his mistress, posthumously appearing in Mexican dancedramas, sometimes fusing with Cortés, or in other dances becoming one face of a two faced-mask, the other side that of Cortés. Clearly, there is no professionalism in her interpreting in the modern sense. Then what about the Nagasaki tsũji, who were professional interpreters and translators? As we have seen in the history of interpreting in Japan (see Chapter 2), neutrality was never the norm for them. They were first and foremost


g overnment employees and their ethical and professional norm was to be loyal to the Tokugawa Shogunate. On the contrary, the pioneer conference/diplomatic interpreters in post-war Japan evidently value neutrality in their interpreting. How did they come to perceive neutrality or impartiality as their professional norm? Shlesinger likewise asks whether the norms have been ‘learned through the observation of colleagues’ performance or through the assimilation of prescriptive writings and the teachings of mentors (1989: 114). Partly in answer to this question, Kondo remembers a U.S. Department of State training session, where a veteran Japanese-English interpreter acting as an instructor recounted an episode in his career. At a bilateral meeting, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs made a long statement, and when it was translated into English, the chief U.S. delegate glared at the interpreter and shouted, ‘What the heck is he trying to say?’ The interpreter did not respond to the American delegate but rendered his words calmly into Japanese. He explained to his trainees that ‘It’s his job to “interpret” the message of the Japanese Minister. I am not going to do that for him.’ Kondo has taken this to be an abiding principle to observe (personal communication, March 29, 2006). With the five pioneer interpreters, it is clear they did not receive any explicit instruction on professional ethics and norms (see Chapter 6). The only possibility then would be what Shlesinger (1989: 114) suggests, that they either learned through the observation of colleagues’ performances, as did Nishiyama and Sohma, or through the teachings of mentors, as was verified by Kondo, or simply learned it on the job. The act of interpreting is interactional in its very nature and an interpreter inevitably receives feedback, which is essentially normative, involving sanctions as well (Toury 1995: 248–249). As Toury suggested about translators, under normal circumstances, interpreters as human beings would wish to avoid negative sanctions on improper performance as much as possible, and try to obtain the rewards which go with a ‘proper’ one. It is possible that the novice interpreters thus undergo such socialization process and gradually internalize norms. The third point for possible enquiry, related to the issue of invisibility, is whether interpreters pride themselves on ‘disappearing’ in the background (Wadensjö 1998: xi) and if so, why. Undoubtedly, it can be painful for highly motivated and intelligent people to compromise their identity and let their self disappear. Selfassertive Sohma, for one, confided that ‘becoming an interpreter is difficult,’ because you have to ‘abandon yourself.’ While none of the five pioneers mentioned having experienced identity crisis, three admitted having wished to give up the profession at some stage in their life. Most notably, Kunihiro confessed that in the height of his career, he started to feel a strong urge to ‘sing my own song,’ a cry for his own voice and identity.

Chapter 7. Perspectives 179

Michael Cronin pointed out that ‘translators are generally accorded the grace of invisibility but whether this is necessarily sanctifying is a question that translators and theorists have asked more and more’ (2003: 64). Will the situation be different if interpreters were freed from the prescribed norms and ethics, and became visible co-constructors in an interaction? If in some situations, as in community settings, visibility is called for, invisibility may not be something innate, or an inevitable prerequisite to the profession. If so, would the projected and perceived identities of interpreters be different? The questions raised are certainly not easily answered. Nevertheless, they merit attention, indicating the need for further study. In the meantime, I shall introduce Goffman’s notion of the ‘mask’ and revisit the Japanese theatrical presence of kurogo, in the hope of finding some clue in defining the role of interpreters. Goffman talks about the ‘mask’ which represents the conception people have formed of themselves as ‘the role we are striving to live up to’ and notes that ‘in the end this becomes second nature and an integral part of our personality’ (1959: 19– 20). This offers us an invaluable insight into the interpreter’s presentation of their role, and their ‘front,’ another of Goffman’s terms, referring to the part of the individual’s performance which regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion in a given setting. It is interesting that Goffman makes dramaturgical references in his discussion of participant’s presentation of the activity (1959: 15) or makes an analogy with a theatrical performance in explaining performances in everyday life (73–74), when reminded that, in Japan, the interpreter’s performance is usually described as that of kurogo (see Chapter 1), and the pioneers mentioned it often in their discussion of the interpreters’ role. Hence, it might be worthwhile here to revisit the role of kurogo, and assume that when interpreters act in interpreting, they put on their ‘mask’ – their invisibility – just as kurogo’s black attire, to perform their ‘front.’ As indispensable participant in kabuki theatre, the kurogo acts as stage coordinator. He is fully versed in the drama and appears on stage dressed in black, wearing their ‘mask,’ to assist the actors with props or costumes, but he is not supposed to be seen by the audience. Their black gear is their ‘mask’ to assume invisibility. And yet, what is important and oftentimes overlooked is that they are not exactly invisible, and never transparent. They do not assert their presence, and yet, their work is very much visible to the audience. By donning their black ‘mask,’ though, the tacit agreement is activated that they are not principal actors but stage coordinators. Drawing an analogy with kurogo, the interpreter likewise is an indispensable participant, not meant to be seen, but s/he is certainly not transparent nor invisible. There is no denying that the interpreter’s presence is visible, with some possible effect on communicative interactions. At the same time, it is also


true that interpreters are never principal actors or dancers themselves. It could be that the interpreters’ inclination for invisibility is their professional ‘mask,’ activating the tacit agreement and reminding the party concerned that the interpreter is not the primary player, but coordinator on an intercultural stage. Just like kurogo, interpreters are there not to dance in the limelight, but to help the dancers perform their dance beautifully and successfully. The interpreter-as-kurogo model would explain the role of interpreters to some extent, if not elaborate enough to capture its complexity. So what are we to do? To help define the role of interpreters in the future, Cronin’s view on translators is essential for interpreters as well. Thus, it is by revealing, not disguising, their identity as translators that translators can make a legitimate bid to make more central interventions in culture, society and politics. To do this involves, of course, changing purely restrictive and instrumental views of translation practice and educating wider society as to what translators both know and can do. There is little chance of this happening, however, if translators and their educators do not also embrace a broader conception of the task of the translator. […] Translators like any other group of professionals in the social and human sciences are distinguished among each other not by what they must do but what they can do. (Cronin 2003: 67)

Cronin states elsewhere that foresight and imagination are two attributes of human language that make change possible (2003: 27), and different languages provide human beings ‘with access to many different kinds of understanding and these are likely to be the basis for more complex, flexible responses to challenges and opportunities’ (74). We should always remember that translators and interpreters, as experts in human language, are able to ‘offer the potential for access to these varieties of understanding’ (ibid.). Positioned in-between, articulating the ‘betweenness’ (Maier 1995: 23), interpreters are there to contribute in a ‘Third Space’ (Bhabha 1994: 36), in the act of communication between two people – between I, the self, and You, the other. This by no means is an easy task, but one that is critical for diversity to be sustainable in a truly multicultural and multilingual world. To conclude, the narratives of the five pioneers demonstrated that an interpreter is not simply an invisible linguistic conduit, but is an intercultural communication expert and coordinator, facilitating and mediating intercultural encounters. Interpreters play the role of kurogo, but their role is quite an autonomous one, ingenious and creative, with their own insight, judgment and decision-making, with their individual empathy, passion and determination. In that sense, it may well be concluded that the interpreters’ presence as kurogo is definitely beyond invisibility, and beyond anonymity.

“Kurogo” Retrieved March 26, 2006 http://www2.nt.jac.go.jp/dglib/edc-dic/dictionary/dic.ka/dic-ka-33html

References

AIIC. (1998–2006). Code of professional ethics. Version 1994. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/article24.htm. Anderson, R. B. W. (1976). Perspectives on the role of interpreter. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 208–228). New York: Gardner Press. Angelelli, C. V. (2004a). Revisiting the interpreter’s role: A study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Angelelli, C. V. (2004b). Medical interpreting and cross-cultural communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arjona-Tseng, E. (2005, August). Acceptance speech for Pierre François Calle Memorial Medal. Presented at FIT (International Federation of Translators) XVII World Congress. Tampere, Finland. Unpublished. Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. London: Sage. Austin, J. L. (1962/1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York: Oxford University Press. Baigorri-Jalon, J. (1999). Conference interpreting: From modern times to space technology. Interpreting, 4(1), 29–40. Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A course book on translation. London & New York: Routledge. Baker, M. (1998/2001). Introduction. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (2nd ed., pp. xiv–xv). London & New York: Routledge. Baker, M. (2006). Translation and conflict: A narrative account. London & New York: Routledge. Baker, M. (Ed.). (1998/2001). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holoquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986/2002). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Barik, H. C. (1969). A study of simultaneous interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Barnhart, M. A. (2001). From Hershey bars to motor cars: America’s economic policy toward Japan, 1945–1976. In A. Irie & R. A. Wampler (Eds.), Partnership: The United States and Japan 1951–2001 (pp. 201–222). Tokyo, New York, London: Kodansha International. Barlund, D. C. (1975). Public and private self in Japan and the United States: Communicative styles of two cultures. Tokyo: Simul.


Barlund, D. C. (1989). Communicative styles of Japanese and Americans. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Bell, S. E. (1988). Becoming a political woman: The reconstruction and interpretation of experience through stories. In A. D. Todd, S. Fisher (Eds.). Gender and discourse: The power of talk (pp. 97–123). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A develolpmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. R. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 22–73). Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press. Benjamin, W. (1992). The task of the translator (H. Zohn, Trans.). In R. Schulte & J. Biguenet (Eds.), Theories of translation: An anthology of essays from Dryden to Derrida (pp. 71–82). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Berlitz. (Ed.). (1983) Sekai Kotoba Hyakka. Tokyo: Berlitz. Bermann, S. (2005). Introduction. In S. Bermann & M. Wood (Eds.), Nation, language, and the ethics of translation (pp. 1–10). Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London & New York: Routledge. Blumer, H. (1939/1979). Critiques of research in the social sciences: I: An appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki’s The Polish peasant in Europe and America. New York: Social Science Research Council (2nd ed. with a new introduction, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books). Bot, H. (2003). The myth of the uninvolved interpreter: Interpreting in mental health and the development of a three-person psychology. In L. Brunette, G. Bastin, I. Hemlin & H. Clarke (Eds.), The critical link 3 (pp. 27–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (R. Gino & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1993). La misère du monde. Paris: Seuil. Bourdieu, P. (1996). Understanding (B. Fowler, Trans.). Theory, Culture and Society, 13, 17–37. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Polity Press. Bowen, M. (1995). Interpreters and the making of history. In J. Delisle & J. Woodsworth (Eds.), Translators through history (pp. 245–273). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. UNESCO Publishing. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byram, M. (Ed.). (2003). Intercultural competence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. (Eds.). (2001). Developing intercultural competence in practice. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Zarate, G., & Neuner, G. (1997). Sociocultural competence in language learning and teaching. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Chafe, W. L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chesterman, A.(Ed.). (1989). Readings in translation theory. Helsinki: Fin Lectura. Chesterman, A. (1997.). Ethics of translation. In M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarova, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation as intercultural communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

References 185

Chesterman, A. (2001). Proposal for a hieronymic oath. The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication, 7(2 Special Issue: The Return to Ethics), 139–154. Chikushi, T. (1982). Kimyo na hishokan. In M. Kunihiro (Ed.), Kunihiro Masao jisenshu (Vol. 5 Taidan, pp. 297–299). Tokyo: Nihon Eigo Kyoiku Kyokai. Cicero, M. T. (1949). De inventione, De optimo genere oratorum, Topica. (H. M. Hubbel, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clifford, J. (1986). Partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1–26). Berkeley: University of California Press. Cronin, M. (2002). The empire talks back: Orality, heteronomy and the cultural turn in interpreting studies. In M. Tymoczko & E. Gentzler (Eds.), Translation and power. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Cronin, M. (2003). Translation and globalization. London & New York: Routledge. Cronin, M. (2006). Translation and identity. London & New York: Routledge. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Delisle, J., & Woodsworth, J. (Eds.). (1995). Translators through history. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. UNESCO Publishing. Diriker, E. (2004). De/Re-Contextualizing conference interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Essex, England: Pearson Education. Eco, U. (2003/2004). Mouse or rat? Translation as negotiation. London: Phonix. Ellison, R. (1947). Invisible man. NewYork: Random House. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity:Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton. Evans, G. E. (1973). Approaches to interviewing. Oral History, 1(4), 62–63. Evans, G. E. (1975). The days that we have seen. London: Faber and Faber. Flanagan, S. C. (1991). The political and cultural dimensions of the trade friction between the United States and Japan. MacMillan. Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage. Fukuzawa, Y. (1899/1980). Fukuou jiden (3rd ed.). Tokyo: Iwanami. Gaiba, F. (1998). The origins of simultaneous interpretation: The Nuremberg trial. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gerver, D. (1971). Aspects of simultaneous interpretation and human information processing. Unpubliched D. Phil. thesis, Oxford University. Gile, D. (1985). Le modele d’effort et l’equilibre en interpretation simultanee. Meta, 30(1), 44– 48. Gile, D. (1994). Opening up in interpretation studies. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline (pp. 149–158). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland: Doubleday.


Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 1(2), 127–140. Gottlieb, N. (2005). Language and society in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gouanvic, J.-M. (2005). A Bourdieusian theory of translation, or the coincidence of practical instances: Field, ‘habitus’, capital and ‘illusio’. The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication, 11 (2 Special Issue: Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translation and Interpreting), 147–166. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. Haga, T. (2000). Meishi meiyaku no bunkashi-teki keifu. In T. Haga (Ed.), Honyaku to nihon bunka (pp. 4–23). Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppan. Halberstam, D. (1986). The reckoning. New York: Avon Books. Hale, S. (2005). The interpreter’s identity crisis. In J. House, M. R. M. Ruano & N. Baumgarten (Eds.), IATIS year book 2005: Translation and the construction of identity (pp. 14–29). IATIS (International Association for Translation & Intercultural Studies). Hall, E. T. (1952/1973). The silent language. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (1966). Chinmoku no kotoba (M. Kunihiro, Y. Nagai & M. Saito, Trans.). Tokyo: Nan-un Do. Hall, E. T. (1982). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday. Hanna, S. F. (2005). Hamlet lives happily ever after in Arabic. The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication, 11 (2 Special Issue: Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translation and Interpreting), 167–192. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome. Hara, F. (2004). Tsuuyaku booth kara miru sekai (a booth with a view). Tokyo: The Japan Times. Harris, B. (1990). Norms in interpretation. Target, 2(1), 115–119. Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. Essex, UK: Longman. Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge. Hayashi, R. (2000). Nagasaki tsuji: O-tsuji Hayashi Doei to sono shuhen. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobun-kan. Hinohara, S., & Sohma, Y. (2003). Asu no nihon eno okurimono. Tokyo: Mainichi Shimbunsha. Hirano, K. (2008). Kokusai-bunka-gaku toshiteno Ttsûyaku-gaku wa donoyouni tsukuraretsutsu aruka. Intercultural. Vol. 6 (pp. 146–152). Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. (2006). The Podsdam Declaration. Retrieved June 13, 2006 from http://www.pcf.city. hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/vist_fr_e.html. Hirsh, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Hofstedt, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill. Holmes, J. S. (2004).The name and nature of translation studies. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 180–192). New York & London: Routledge. Hosoya, C. (Ed.). (2001). Japan and the United States: Fifty years of friendship. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Hosoya, C., Ariga, T., Ishii, O., & Sasaki, T. (1999). A documentary history of US-Japanese relations 1945–1997. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

References 187

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B.Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistcs (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Igarashi, H. (2006, March 31, Friday). Nagatacho wo hanaretemo: Kotatsu de ureeru kokusaiha. TheMainichi Shimbun, p. 4. Inami, R. (2000). Nihon-jin no kyoyo no dento wo megutte. In T. Haga (Ed.), Honyaku to Nihon bunka (pp. 24–37). Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppan. Inghilleri, M. (2003). Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity. Target, 15 (2, 2003). 243–268. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjammins. Inghilleri, M. (2005a). Mediating zones of uncertainty: Interpreter agency, the interpreting habitus and political asylum adjudication. The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication, 11(1 November 2005), 69–85. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome. Inghilleri, M. (2005b). The sociology of Bourdieu and the construction of the ‘object’ in translation and interpreting studies. The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication, 11(2 Special Issue: Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translation and Interpreting), 125–145. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome. Initiatives of Change. (2006). Moral re-armament. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://www. uk.initiativesofchange.org/. Iriye, A., & Wampler, R. A. (Eds.). (2001). Partnership: The United States and Japan 1951–2001. Tokyo, New York, London: Kodansha International. Itasaka, G. (Ed.). (1996). Japanese history: 11 experts reflect on the past. Tokyo, New York, London: Kodansha International. Jacobson, R. (1959/2004). On linguistic aspects of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 138–143). London and New York: Routledge. James, D. (2000). Doňa Maria’s story: Life, history, memory, and political identity. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Japan Arts Council. (2001–2003). Kabuki jiten: Kurogo. Retrieved March26, 2006, from http:// www2.nt.jac.go.jp/dglib/edc_dic/dictionary/dic_ka/dic_ka_33html. Johnson, C. (1987). How to think about economic competition from Japan. Journal of Japanese studies. 13 (summer). 415–428. Karttunen, F. (1994). Between worlds: Interpreters, guides, and survivors. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Katagiri, K. (1995). Oranda tsuji: Imamura Gen-uemon Eisei. Tokyo: Maruzen. Katan, D. (1999/2004). Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators. (2nd ed.). Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome. Kelly, M. (2006). Intercultural communication studies in Europe: The policy connection. Intercultural Communication Review (4), 23–37. Kenyon, G. M., & Randall, L. W. (1997). Restorying our lives: Personal growth through autobiographical reflection. London: Praeger. Kodama, S. (2000). The complete guide to traditional Japanese performing arts. Tokyo, New York, London: Kodansha International. Kokugo Shingikai. (2000). Kokugo shingikai toshin (22nd): Kokusai shakai ni taiou-suru Nihongo no arikata. Tokyo: Kokugo Shingikai. Komatsu, T. (2003). Tsuuyaku no Eigo, Nihongo. Tokyo: Bungei Shunju. Komatsu, T. (2005). Daigaku/daigakuin ni okeru tsuyaku-kanren program no arikata. JAIS 6th Annual Conference. Japan Association for Interpretation Studies. Komatsu, T. (2005). Tsuyaku no gijutsu. Tokyo: Kenkyu-sha.


Kondo, M. (1988). Japanese interpreters in their socio-cultural context. Meta, 33(1), 70–78. Korchilov, I. (1997). Translating history: Thirty years on the front lines of diplomacy with a top Russian interpreter. New York: Lisa Drew/Scribner. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2005). Intercultural literacy vs. communicative competence. Kokusai Kenkyu Shukai: Kotoba, bunka, shakai no gengo kyoiku. Waseda University, Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London/New York: continuum. Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: PrenticeHall. Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Cultures: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Peabody Museum Papers Vol. 47, 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Krouglov, A. (2004). Teaching diplomatic interpreting. Paper presented at Critical Link 4: International Conference on Interpreting in the Community, Stockholm. Kunihiro, M. (1969). Tsuyaku no kotoba. In M. Kunihiro, S. Nishiyama & N. Kanayama (Eds.), Tsuyaku: Eikaiwa kara doji-tsuyaku made (pp. 49–98). Tokyo: Nippon Hoso Shuppan Kyokai. Kunihiro, M. (1970). Eigo no hanashi-kata (English works for you) (4th ed.). Tokyo: Simul. Lang, R. (1978). Behavioral aspects of liason interpreters in Papua New Guinea: Some preliminary observations. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaico (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 231–244). New York & London: Plenum. Lim, H.-O. (2004). Revisiting the role of interpreters. Conference Interpretation and Translation, 6(2), 81–96. Longley, P. (1968). Conference interpreting. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons. Longman. (2003). Longman dictionary of contemporary English (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education. Maier, C. (1995). Toward a theoretical practice for cross-cultural translation. In A. Dingwaney & C. Maier (Eds.), Between languages and cultures: Translation and cross-cultural texts (pp. 21–38). Pittsburgh & London: University of Pittsburgh Press. Maruyama, M., & Kato, S. (1998). Honyaku to nihon no kindai. Tokyo: Iwanami. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Mason, I. (2005). Projected and perceived identities in dialogue interpreting. In J. House, M. R. M. Ruano & N. Baumgarten (Eds.), IATIS year book 2005: Translation and the construction of identity (pp. 30–52). IATIS (International Association for Translation & Intercultural Studies). Mason, I. (Ed.). (2001). Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome. Mason, I., & Stewart, M. (2001). Interactional pragmatics: Face and the dialogue interpreter. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting (pp. 51–70). Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome. Mesa, A. (2000). The cultural interpreter: An appreciated professional. In R. Roberts, S. Carr, D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the community (pp. 67–79). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins.

References 189

Miyajima, T. (2003). Gengo shihon to minority. In T. Miyajima & Y. Ishii (Eds.), Bunka no kenryoku: Hansha suru Bourdieu (pp. 21–42). Tokyo: Fujiwara Shoten. Moser-Mercer, B. (1997). Process models in simultaneous interpretation. In C. Hauenschild & S. Heizmann (Eds.), Machine translation and translation theory (pp. 3–17). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Munday, J. (2001/2008). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London & New York: Routledge. Muramatsu, M. (1978). Watashi mo eigo ga hanasenakatta (I couldn’t speak English either). Tokyo: Simul. Muramatsu, M. (1981). The mouse and the porcupine: An Aesop’s fable for communicators (Speech delivered at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan, Tokyo, June 5, 1981). Tokyo: Keizai Koho Center. Muramatsu, M. (1986). Dakara Eigo wa omoshiroi: How humor helps communication. Tokyo: Simul. Mydans, S. (2005, October1~2). For the Kremlin, he was the man in the middle. International Herald Tribune, pp. 1, 6. Naka, A. (2000). Mokusatsu. Tokyo: Nippon Hoso Kyokai. Nakasone, Y. (1997). Sengo 50 nen to nihon no shinro. Tokyo: Sekai Heiwa Kenkyujo. Nakasone, Y. (2004). Jisei-roku. Tokyo: Shincho-sha. Natsume, S. (1969). Kokoro (E. McClellan, Trans.). Tokyo: Tuttle. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: Brill. Nishida, H. (1989). Jitsurei de miru Nichi-bei communication gap. Tokyo: Taishukan. Nishijima, H. (2002). Kokoro no kaikoku wo: Sohma Yukika no 90 nen. Tokyo: Chuo Koron Shinsha. Nishiyama, S. (1970). Tsuyaku-jutsu. Tokyo: Jitsugyo no Nihon-sha. Nishiyama, S. (1972). Gokai to rikai: Nihon-jin to America-jin. Tokyo: Simul. Nishiyama, S. (1979). Tsuyaku-jutsu to watashi. Tokyo: President-sha. Nord, C. (1991). Text analysis in translation. Amesterdam: Rodopi. Oberdorfer, D. (1997). Japan and the United States: Adventures and reflections of a diplomatic correspondent. IHJ Bulletin, 17(2), 16–20. Oberdorfer, D. (2001). The American ambassadors, 1977–1996. In A. Iriye & R. A. Wampler (Eds.), Partnership: The United States and Japan 1951–2001 (pp. 77–93). Tokyo, New York, London: Kodansha International. Ohba, M. (1993/1996). Tsuda Umeko. Tokyo: Asahi. Ohsawa, Y. (2005). Amalgamation of literariness: Translations as a means of introducing European literary techniques to modern Japan. In E. Hung & J. Wakabayashi (Eds.), Asian translation traditions (pp. 135–154). Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome. Ohtani. (1975, August 8, Friday). Tsuyaku no ‘bigi’ ga tasukebune. The Asahi Shimbun, p. 2. Oléron, P. & Nanpon, H. (1965). Récherche sur la traduction simultanée. Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique, 62(1), 73–94. Ong, W. J. (1982/2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London & New York: Routledge. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1992). The misery and the splendor of translation (E. G. Miller, Trans.). In R. Schulte & J. Biguenet (Eds.), Theories of translation: An anthology of essays from Dryden to Derrida (pp. 93–112). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. OUP. (1991). The compact Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press.


Paneth, E. (1957). An investigation into conference interpreting (with special reference to the training of interpreters). Unpublished MA thesis, University of London. Personal Narratives Group. (1989). Truths. In Personal Narratives Group (Eds.), Interpreting women’s lives: Feminist theory and personal narratives (pp. 261–264). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Petersen, M. (2003). Eigo no kabe (the English barrier). Tokyo: Bungei Shunju. Phelan, M. (2001). The interpreter’s resource. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters. Pinter (Kurz), I. (1969). Der Einfluß der Übung und Konzentration auf simultanes Sprechen und Hören. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna. Pinkerton, Y. (1996). Are interpreters allowed to ‘edit’? A comparison of interpreting principles between Japan and Australia. Interpreting Research, 6(2), 4–15. Plummer, K. (2001). Documents of life 2: An invitation to a critical humanism. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. Pöchhacker, F. (1998). Unity in diversity: The case of interpreting studies. In M. Cronin, L. Bowker, D. Kenny & J. Pearson (Ed.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies (pp. 169–176). Manchester, UK: St. Jerome. Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London & New York: Routledge. Pöchhacker, F., & Shlesinger, M. (2002). The interpreting studies reader. London and New York: Routledge. Portelli, A. (1997). The battle of Valle Giulia: Oral history and the art of dialogue. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Pym, A. (1998). Method in translation history. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome. Pym, A. (2001). The return to ethics in translation studies. The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication, 7(2 Special Issue: The Return to Ethics), 129–138. Reischauer, E. O. (1982). Le mot juste. In M. Kunihiro (Ed.), Kunihiro Masao jisenshu (Vol. 6: Essay, Hyoron, Shohyo, pp. 289–293). Tokyo: Nihon Eigo Kyoiku Kyokai. Reischauer, E. O., & Reischauer, H. (2003). Reischauer-taishi nichiroku. Tokyo: Kodansha. Reiss, K. (1971/2000). Mőglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Munich: M. Hueber. (E. F. Rhodes Trans. (2000) Translation criticism: Potential and limitations. Manchester: St. Jerome and American Bible Society). Reiss, K. (1977/1989). Text types, translation types and translation assessment. (A. Chesterman Trans.). In A. Chesterman (Ed.). (1989). Readings in translation theory (pp. 105–115). Helsinki: Finn Lectura. Reston, J. (1975, August 8, Friday). Hiroshima plus thirty. The New York Times, p. 27. Richardson, L. (1990). Writing strategies: Reaching diverse audiences. London: Sage. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage. Roberts, R., Carr, S. E., Abraham, D., & Dufour, A. (Eds.). (2000). The critical link 2: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Roland, R. A. (1999). Interpreters as diplomats: A diplomatic history of the role of interpreters in world politics. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Roy, C. B. (1993). A sociological analysis of the interpreter’s role in simultaneous talk. Multilingua, 12(4), 341–363. Sato, E. (1997). Sato Eisaku nikki. Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun-sha. Saito, Y. (2001). Eigo shurai to Nihonjin. Tokyo: Kodansha. Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & Jain, N. C. (1981). Understanding intercultural communicaiton. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth.

References 191

Sawyer, D. B. (2004). Fundamental aspects of interpreter education: Curriculum and assessment. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schaller, M. (2001). The United States, Japan, and China at fifty. In A. Iriye & R. A. Wampler (Eds.), Partnership: The United States and Japan 1951–2001 (pp. 33–61). Tokyo, New York, London: Kodansha International. Schulte, R., & Biguenet, J. (Eds.). (1992). Theories of translation: An anthology of essays from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seleskovitch, D. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences (S. Dailey & E. N. McMillan, Trans.). Washington D.C.: Pen & Booth. Semizu, Y. (2001). Oranda tsuji and the Sidotti incident: An interview with an Italian missionary by a Confucian scholar in eighteenth-century Japan. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting (pp. 131–145). Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome. Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sherwin, M. (1995). Hiroshima at fifty: The politics of history and memory. IHJ Bulletin, 15 (4). Tokyo: International House of Japan. Shlesinger, M. (1989). Extending the theory of translation to interpretation: Norms as a case in point. Target, 1(1), 111–115. Simeoni, D. (1998). The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus. Target, 10(1), 1–39. Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Snell-Hornby, M., Jettmarova, Z., & Kaindl, K. (Eds.). (1997). Translation as intercultural communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Snell-Hornby, M., Pöchhacker, F., & Kaindl, K. (Eds.). (1994). Translation studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Taishukan. (2000). Genius Japanese to English dictionary. In Ex-word Casio elecronic dictionary. Tokyo: Taishukan. Takasaki, S. (2008). Tsuda Sen hyouden. Urayasu: Sofukan. Takeda, K. (2007). Sociopolitical aspects of interpreting at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (1946–1948). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain. Tamai, K. (2005). Shadowing no koka ni kansuru kenkyu. Tokyo: Kazama Press. Thompson, P. (2000). The voice of the past: Oral history (3rd ed.). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Torikai, K. (1996). Ibunka wo koeru Eigo. Tokyo: Maruzen. Torikai, K. (2001/2004a). Rekishi wo kaeta goyaku. Tokyo: Shincho-sha. Torikai, K. (2002). TOEFL/TOEIC Test to Nihonjin no Eigo-ryoku. Tokyo: Kondansha. Torikai, K. (2004b). American ways of communication. In T. Oda, H. Kashiwagi, T. Takayuki, M. Notoji, K. Matsuo & S. Yoshimi (Eds.), Jiten: Gendai no America (pp. 812–820). Tokyo: Taishukan. Torikai, K. (2005a). Tsuyaku ni okeru ibunka communication-gaku. In S. Ide & M. Hiraga (Eds.), Koza shakai gengo kagaku 1: Ibunka to communication (pp. 24–39). Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo. Torikai, K. (2005b). The challenge of language and communication in twenty-first century Japan. Japanese Studies, 25(3), 249–256.


Torikai, K. (2006a). Mapping the intercultural field in Japan: Possibilities and potentials. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 2006(9), 21–31. Torikai, K. (2006b). Ayaushi! Shogakko Eigo. Tokyo: Bungei Sunju. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Trevelyan, H. (1973). Diplomatic channels. London: Macmillan. United Nations. Trompenaars, F. & Hampton-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture. London: Nicholas Brearley. Tylor, E. B. (1871/1958). Primitive culture. New York: Harper. Tymoczko, M., & Gentzler, E. (2002). Translation and power. Amherst & Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London & New York: Routledge. Venuti, L. (1998). The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of difference. London & New York: Routledge. Venuti, L. (2004). Translation, community, utopia. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 482–502). New York & London: Routledge. Venuti, L. (Ed.). (2004). The translation studies reader (2nd ed.). New York and London: Routledge. Venuti, L. (2005). Translating humor: Equivalence, compensation, discourse. 2nd Annuat Meeting of Rikkyo Intercultural Communication Society (RICS). Rikkyo University, Tokyo: Rikkyo Graduate School of Intercultural Communication. Vermeer, H. J. (2004). Skopos and commission in translational action (A. Chesterman, Trans.). In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 227–238). New York & London: Routledge. Visson, L. (2005). Simultaneous interpretation: Language and cultural difference. In S. Bermann & M. Wood (Eds.), Nation, language, and the ethics of translation (pp. 51–64). Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press. Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London & New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Wadensjö, C. (2001). Interpreting in crisis. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting (pp. 71–85). Manchester, UK & Northampton MA: St. Jerome. Wakabayashi, J. (2005). Translation in the East Asian cultural sphere: Shared roots, divergent paths? In E. Hung & J. Wakabayashi (Eds.), Asian translation traditions (pp. 17–61). Manchester, UK & Northampton MA: St. Jerome. Watanabe, T. (1998). Tokyo saiban no tsuyaku kenkyu: Tojo Hideki shogen wo tsujite. Interpreting Research, 14(2), 104–113. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally. Weistein, M. E. (1991). The impact of trade problems on US-Japan security cooperation. In T. Mason, D. Turay, & M. Abdul (Eds.) US-Japan Trade friction (pp. 88–104). Whitney, C. (1979). Clara’s diary: An American girl in Meiji Japan. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House. Yamaguchi, M. (2001). Eigo koza no tanjo. Tokyo: Kodansha.

References 193

Yamamoto, H. (2006, January 24). Oshimi Takayuki-san(33): Iryo tsuyakusha yosei ni torikumu ishi. The Asahi Shimbun, p. 2. Yanabu, A. (1982). Honyaku-go seiritsu jijo. Tokyo: Iwanami. Yanabu, A. (1998). Honyaku-go wo yomu. Tokyo: Maruyama Gakugei Tosho.

Index

Commodore Perry 29, 31 communicative competence 44, 107, 171 communicative language teaching 44, 45, 47 conduit 161, 169, 173, 180 confidentiality 6, 159, 161 continuum of constructions 20 continuum of involvement 19 continuum of representativeness 15 co-participant 157, 159, 176 Cuban Missile Crisis 104 cultural anthropology 25, 63, 64, 157, 168 cultural clarifier 124, 149, 160, 169 cultural interpreter 169, 171 cultural mediator 21, 22, 169, 171 see also mediator cultural third space 166, 173 see also Third Space

empathy 46, 136, 137, 138, 147, 149, 170, 175, 180 Emperor 71, 91 equivalence 9, 133, 134, 172 ESS (English Speaking Society) 61 ethics 3, 78, 140, 147, 150, 153, 155, 159, 161, 162, 171, 177, 178, 179 ethnographic study 103

B background knowledge 134, 144 see also prior knowledge beliefs 147, 157, 162, 170, 171 Benedict, Ruth 168 Bourdieu’s social theory 7, 8, 49

D Denmark 64, 76, 77, 78 dialogism 164 domains of bias 16, 17 Domei Press 33, 34 domestication 147 domesticating 176 see also foreignizing dynamic equivalence 133, 134 see also equivalence

G Gensuikyo 38, 62, 78, 79, 102 grammar-translation method 54, 82, 83 Grice’s Cooperative Principles 42, 43, 170 maxims 42, 170

C Caux, Switzerland 37, 94, 95, 135 cherry blossoms 68 co-constructor 173, 179 see also co-participant code of ethics 153, 159, 161, 162

E Eisenhower, Dwight D. 1, 96 Electrotechnical Laboratory, the Ministry of Communications 24, 74

A accuracy 9, 155, 159 advocacy 159 AIIC 49, 50, 161 alien ‘I’ 1, 112 animator 111, 112, 127, 135, 140, 149, 176 see also footing anticipate 108, 124 anticipation 124 Apollo moon landing 10, 18, 38, 119, 120, 121, 148 Apollo broadcasts 10, 18, 38, 82, 120, 121, 148 aptitude 105, 106, 107, 108 Arai Hakuseki 29 army interpreter 32 Asian Parliamentarians Union 136, 137, 138 author 3, 111, 112, 135, 140, 149, 176 see also animator, footing autonomous system 85 Aviation Engineering School 59, 75

F facilitator 169 faithfulness 9, 125, 159 faithful 149 footing 111, 138, 149, 150, 176 foreignizing 168, 176 formal equivalence 133 see also equivalence free-flowing interview 21, 22, 23, 26 front 179 fuchin-kûbo 128, 129, 130, 132

H haragei 40 hari-nezumi 39, 127 Hawaii 25, 63, 64, 80, 87, 168 hearer 111, 149 see also participation framework


‘heiwa kenpo’ (Peace Constitution) 25, 76, 146 heteronomous system 85 high-context culture 38, 42, 43 Hiroshima Conferences against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs 25, 38 see also Gensuikyo honyaku bunka (translation culture) 31 honyaku-shugi (translationism) 31 Hoover, Herbert 71 Hori Tatsunosuke 29

K Kaminker, André 140 Kanda Naibu 57, 81 Kansai dialect 53 Kennedy, John F. 2, 63, 103, 104 Kennedy, Robert 116 Kishi Nobusuke 24, 136 Koizumi Yakumo (Lafcadio Hearn) 62 Kokugo Shingikai 24, 45, 47 kurogo/kuroko 2, 3, 9, 25, 126, 148, 149, 150, 154, 155, 174, 175, 179, 180

I Ibuka Masaru 167 Iceberg Theory 166 Ichimada Hisato 95, 139 identity 2, 18, 153, 171, 178, 179, 180 Ikeda Hayato 2, 103, 146 illocutionary force 6, 43, 133 Imamura Gen-uemon 29 impartiality 155, 159, 161, 162, 178 impartial 177 implicature 6, 35, 43 in-between 85, 166, 176, 180 integrative motive 54 intention 6, 22, 42, 116, 125, 146, 153, 177 intentionality 107 interlingual capacity 106, 107 International Federation of Translators (FIT) 3 interview guidelines 21 Iwakura Mission 30

L language arbiter 36 language combination 49, 177 language school 43, 44, 47 Lin Ko-en 29 low-context culture 38, 42 see also high-context culture

J Japan Association for Interpretation Studies (JAIS) 46, 154 Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies (JAITS) 46 Japan Productivity Center (JPC) 63, 96, 97, 101, 102, 122 Japan-America Student Conference 63

M Malinche (Doňa Marina) 177 Manchuria 70, 71, 76 mask 179, 180 mediator 6, 118, 149, 169, 171 Miyazawa Kiichi 2, 63, 104, 141, 142 mokusatsu 33, 34, 35 monitor 36, 37 Moriyama Einosuke 28, 29, 30 N Nagase Takashi 32 Natsume Soseki 118 natural interpreter 109 native translator 106 natural translation 106 neutral 16, 27, 119, 125, 149, 156, 161, 163, 177 neutrality 9, 29, 123, 157, 159, 161, 162, 177, 178 Nitobe Inazo 55 Nixon shocks 41 norm 40, 150, 153, 162, 166, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179 North Pacific Fishery Meeting 122

note- taking 92 O Oberdorfer, Don 128, 131 Obuchi Keizo 124 Oka Takashi 37 Okakura Yoshisaburo 82 Okinawa 39, 40, 112, 122, 123, 163 Okinawa for textiles’ summit 39 ondoku (read-aloud) 55, 61 see also sodoku on-the-job training 5, 38, 44, 79, 86, 92, 110 Oranda tsũji (Nagasaki tsũji) 28, 29 Ozaki Gakudo Yukio 24, 67, 68, 71 P participation framework 10, 111, 112, 149 principal 3, 140, 175 see also participation framework prior knowledge 134, 135, 167 professional conference organizer 43, 44 congress organizing agency 38 R racial discrimination 72, 73, 80 rakugo 52, 53 rapport 16, 19, 115, 147 Reagan, Ronald 1, 127, 129 reliability 14, 15, 16 representativeness 14, 15 reproduction 102, 107 Reston, James 142 Roosevelt, Theodore 62 S Scotland 58, 81, 82 sensei 97, 112, 117, 118, 147 shadowing 45 Shakespeare 54, 55, 56, 62 Shimanouchi Toshiro 37

Index 197

shitamachi 51 Sidotti, Giovanni Battista 29 Simul International 24, 25 skopos 139, 146 sodoku 52, 53, 55 oral reading 53 Speech Act Theory 133 see also illocutionary force Suzuki Kantaro 33, 34 Suzuki Zenko 39 see also hari-nezumi

textile exports 40 Third Space 166, 176, 180 Toh-tsũji 28, 29 tone 61, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135 transparent 3, 9, 21, 119, 125, 126, 133, 138, 147, 148, 149, 150, 154, 179 transparency 12, 149, 154 Triad of Culture 166 Truman, Harry S. 33, 34, 35 Tsuda Umeko 32

W Wickel, James 2, 99, 104 working language 50

T Taji Makoto 37

U United Nations 1, 5, 92

Y Yamazaki Toyoko 37 Yomiuri Giants 141

V validity 14, 15, 16, 17, 23 validity checks 17, 23

X Xiaowaijiaoguan (little diplomats) 154

Benjamins Translation Library A complete list of titles in this series can be found on www.benjamins.com 83 Torikai, Kumiko: Voices of the Invisible Presence. Diplomatic interpreters in post-World War II Japan. 2009. x, 197 pp. 82 Beeby, Allison, Patricia Rodríguez Inés and Pilar Sánchez-Gijón (eds.): Corpus Use and Translating. Corpus use for learning to translate and learning corpus use to translate. x, 151 pp. + index. Expected February 2009 81 Milton, John and Paul Bandia (eds.): Agents of Translation. vi, 329 pp. + index. Expected February 2009 80 Hansen, Gyde, Andrew Chesterman and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.): Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. A tribute to Daniel Gile. 2009. ix, 302 pp. 79 Yuste Rodrigo, Elia (ed.): Topics in Language Resources for Translation and Localisation. 2008. xii, 220 pp. 78 Chiaro, Delia, Christine Heiss and Chiara Bucaria (eds.): Between Text and Image. Updating research in screen translation. 2008. x, 292 pp. 77 Díaz Cintas, Jorge (ed.): The Didactics of Audiovisual Translation. 2008. xii, 263 pp. (incl. CD-Rom). 76 Valero-Garcés, Carmen and Anne Martin (eds.): Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting. Definitions and dilemmas. 2008. xii, 291 pp. 75 Pym, Anthony, Miriam Shlesinger and Daniel Simeoni (eds.): Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury. 2008. xii, 417 pp. 74 Wolf, Michaela and Alexandra Fukari (eds.): Constructing a Sociology of Translation. 2007. vi, 226 pp. 73 Gouadec, Daniel: Translation as a Profession. 2007. xvi, 396 pp. 72 Gambier, Yves, Miriam Shlesinger and Radegundis Stolze (eds.): Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies. Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004. 2007. xii, 362 pp. [EST Subseries 4] 71 St-Pierre, Paul and Prafulla C. Kar (eds.): In Translation – Reflections, Refractions, Transformations. 2007. xvi, 313 pp. 70 Wadensjö, Cecilia, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Anna-Lena Nilsson (eds.): The Critical Link 4. Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Selected papers from the 4th International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Stockholm, Sweden, 20-23 May 2004. 2007. x, 314 pp. 69 Delabastita, Dirk, Lieven D’hulst and Reine Meylaerts (eds.): Functional Approaches to Culture and Translation. Selected papers by José Lambert. 2006. xxviii, 226 pp. 68 Duarte, João Ferreira, Alexandra Assis Rosa and Teresa Seruya (eds.): Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines. 2006. vi, 207 pp. 67 Pym, Anthony, Miriam Shlesinger and Zuzana Jettmarová (eds.): Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting. 2006. viii, 255 pp. 66 Snell-Hornby, Mary: The Turns of Translation Studies. New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? 2006. xi, 205 pp. 65 Doherty, Monika: Structural Propensities. Translating nominal word groups from English into German. 2006. xxii, 196 pp. 64 Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta: Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. 2005. xx, 295 pp. 63 Janzen, Terry (ed.): Topics in Signed Language Interpreting. Theory and practice. 2005. xii, 362 pp. 62 Pokorn, Nike K.: Challenging the Traditional Axioms. Translation into a non-mother tongue. 2005. xii, 166 pp. [EST Subseries 3] 61 Hung, Eva (ed.): Translation and Cultural Change. Studies in history, norms and image-projection. 2005. xvi, 195 pp. 60 Tennent, Martha (ed.): Training for the New Millennium. Pedagogies for translation and interpreting. 2005. xxvi, 276 pp. 59 Malmkjær, Kirsten (ed.): Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes. 2004. vi, 202 pp. 58 Branchadell, Albert and Lovell Margaret West (eds.): Less Translated Languages. 2005. viii, 416 pp. 57 Chernov, Ghelly V.: Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting. A probability-prediction model. Edited with a critical foreword by Robin Setton and Adelina Hild. 2004. xxx, 268 pp. [EST Subseries 2]

56 Orero, Pilar (ed.): Topics in Audiovisual Translation. 2004. xiv, 227 pp. 55 Angelelli, Claudia V.: Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role. A study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. 2004. xvi, 127 pp. 54 González Davies, Maria: Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Activities, tasks and projects. 2004. x, 262 pp. 53 Diriker, Ebru: De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting. Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? 2004. x, 223 pp. 52 Hale, Sandra: The Discourse of Court Interpreting. Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. 2004. xviii, 267 pp. 51 Chan, Leo Tak-hung: Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory. Modes, issues and debates. 2004. xvi, 277 pp. 50 Hansen, Gyde, Kirsten Malmkjær and Daniel Gile (eds.): Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001. 2004. xiv, 320 pp. [EST Subseries 1] 49 Pym, Anthony: The Moving Text. Localization, translation, and distribution. 2004. xviii, 223 pp. 48 Mauranen, Anna and Pekka Kujamäki (eds.): Translation Universals. Do they exist? 2004. vi, 224 pp. 47 Sawyer, David B.: Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education. Curriculum and Assessment. 2004. xviii, 312 pp. 46 Brunette, Louise, Georges Bastin, Isabelle Hemlin and Heather Clarke (eds.): The Critical Link 3. Interpreters in the Community. Selected papers from the Third International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Montréal, Quebec, Canada 22–26 May 2001. 2003. xii, 359 pp. 45 Alves, Fabio (ed.): Triangulating Translation. Perspectives in process oriented research. 2003. x, 165 pp. 44 Singerman, Robert: Jewish Translation History. A bibliography of bibliographies and studies. With an introductory essay by Gideon Toury. 2002. xxxvi, 420 pp. 43 Garzone, Giuliana and Maurizio Viezzi (eds.): Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and opportunities. 2002. x, 337 pp. 42 Hung, Eva (ed.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4. Building bridges. 2002. xii, 243 pp. 41 Nida, Eugene A.: Contexts in Translating. 2002. x, 127 pp. 40 Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta and Kenneth Hyltenstam (eds.): Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting. Interdisciplinary perspectives. 2000. xvi, 164 pp. 39 Chesterman, Andrew, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador and Yves Gambier (eds.): Translation in Context. Selected papers from the EST Congress, Granada 1998. 2000. x, 393 pp. 38 Schäffner, Christina and Beverly Adab (eds.): Developing Translation Competence. 2000. xvi, 244 pp. 37 Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja and Riitta Jääskeläinen (eds.): Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Outlooks on empirical research. 2000. x, 176 pp. 36 Schmid, Monika S.: Translating the Elusive. Marked word order and subjectivity in English-German translation. 1999. xii, 174 pp. 35 Somers, Harold (ed.): Computers and Translation. A translator's guide. 2003. xvi, 351 pp. 34 Gambier, Yves and Henrik Gottlieb (eds.): (Multi) Media Translation. Concepts, practices, and research. 2001. xx, 300 pp. 33 Gile, Daniel, Helle V. Dam, Friedel Dubslaff, Bodil Martinsen and Anne Schjoldager (eds.): Getting Started in Interpreting Research. Methodological reflections, personal accounts and advice for beginners. 2001. xiv, 255 pp. 32 Beeby, Allison, Doris Ensinger and Marisa Presas (eds.): Investigating Translation. Selected papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998. 2000. xiv, 296 pp. 31 Roberts, Roda P., Silvana E. Carr, Diana Abraham and Aideen Dufour (eds.): The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community. Selected papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in legal, health and social service settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19–23 May 1998. 2000. vii, 316 pp. 30 Dollerup, Cay: Tales and Translation. The Grimm Tales from Pan-Germanic narratives to shared international fairytales. 1999. xiv, 384 pp. 29 Wilss, Wolfram: Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century. Focus on German. 1999. xiii, 256 pp. 28 Setton, Robin: Simultaneous Interpretation. A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. 1999. xvi, 397 pp.

27 Beylard-Ozeroff, Ann, Jana Králová and Barbara Moser-Mercer (eds.): Translators' Strategies and Creativity. Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995. In honor of Jiří Levý and Anton Popovič. 1998. xiv, 230 pp. 26 Trosborg, Anna (ed.): Text Typology and Translation. 1997. xvi, 342 pp. 25 Pollard, David E. (ed.): Translation and Creation. Readings of Western Literature in Early Modern China, 1840–1918. 1998. vi, 336 pp. 24 Orero, Pilar and Juan C. Sager (eds.): The Translator's Dialogue. Giovanni Pontiero. 1997. xiv, 252 pp. 23 Gambier, Yves, Daniel Gile and Christopher Taylor (eds.): Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting: What do we know and how? 1997. iv, 246 pp. 22 Chesterman, Andrew: Memes of Translation. The spread of ideas in translation theory. 1997. vii, 219 pp. 21 Bush, Peter and Kirsten Malmkjær (eds.): Rimbaud's Rainbow. Literary translation in higher education. 1998. x, 200 pp. 20 Snell-Hornby, Mary, Zuzana Jettmarová and Klaus Kaindl (eds.): Translation as Intercultural Communication. Selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995. 1997. x, 354 pp. 19 Carr, Silvana E., Roda P. Roberts, Aideen Dufour and Dini Steyn (eds.): The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Papers from the 1st international conference on interpreting in legal, health and social service settings, Geneva Park, Canada, 1–4 June 1995. 1997. viii, 322 pp. 18 Somers, Harold (ed.): Terminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager. 1996. xii, 250 pp. 17 Poyatos, Fernando (ed.): Nonverbal Communication and Translation. New perspectives and challenges in literature, interpretation and the media. 1997. xii, 361 pp. 16 Dollerup, Cay and Vibeke Appel (eds.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3. New Horizons. Papers from the Third Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 1995. 1996. viii, 338 pp. 15 Wilss, Wolfram: Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. 1996. xiii, 259 pp. 14 Melby, Alan K. and Terry Warner: The Possibility of Language. A discussion of the nature of language, with implications for human and machine translation. 1995. xxvi, 276 pp. 13 Delisle, Jean and Judith Woodsworth (eds.): Translators through History. 1995. xvi, 346 pp. 12 Bergenholtz, Henning and Sven Tarp (eds.): Manual of Specialised Lexicography. The preparation of specialised dictionaries. 1995. 256 pp. 11 Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet: Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A methodology for translation. Translated and edited by Juan C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel. 1995. xx, 359 pp. 10 Kussmaul, Paul: Training the Translator. 1995. x, 178 pp. 9 Rey, Alain: Essays on Terminology. Translated by Juan C. Sager. With an introduction by Bruno de Bessé. 1995. xiv, 223 pp. 8 Gile, Daniel: Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. 1995. xvi, 278 pp. 7 Beaugrande, Robert de, Abdullah Shunnaq and Mohamed Helmy Heliel (eds.): Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East. 1994. xii, 256 pp. 6 Edwards, Alicia B.: The Practice of Court Interpreting. 1995. xiii, 192 pp. 5 Dollerup, Cay and Annette Lindegaard (eds.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2. Insights, aims and visions. Papers from the Second Language International Conference Elsinore, 1993. 1994. viii, 358 pp. 4 Toury, Gideon: Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond. 1995. viii, 312 pp. 3 Lambert, Sylvie and Barbara Moser-Mercer (eds.): Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. 1994. 362 pp. 2 Snell-Hornby, Mary, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl (eds.): Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Selected papers from the Translation Studies Congress, Vienna, 1992. 1994. xii, 438 pp. 1 Sager, Juan C.: Language Engineering and Translation. Consequences of automation. 1994. xx, 345 pp.

Voices of the Invisible Presence: Diplomatic Interpreters in Post-World War II Japan (Benjamins Translation Library, EST Subseries)

Agents of Translation (Benjamins Translation Library (Btl); Est)

Expertise And Explicitation in the Translation Process (Benjamins Translation Library : Est)

Contexts in Translating (Benjamins Translation Library)

Translation and the Problem of Sway (Benjamins Translation Library, 92)

The Art of Translation (Benjamins Translation Library (BTL))

Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines (Benjamins Translation Library)

The Didactics of Audiovisual Translation (Benjamins Translation Library)

Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom: Activities, tasks and projects (Benjamins Translation Library, BTL 54)

In Translation - Reflections, Refractions, Transformations (Benjamins Translation Library)

Constructing a Sociology of Translation (Benjamins Translation Library)

Less Translated Languages (Benjamins Translation Library)

Multi Media Translation: Concepts, Practices and Research (Benjamins Translation Library)

Multi Media Translation: Concepts, Practices and Research (Benjamins Translation Library)

Computers and Translation: A Translator's Guide (Benjamins Translation Library)

Translation as a Profession (Benjamins Translation Library, 73)

Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in action (Benjamins Translation Library)

Multi Media Translation: Concepts, Practices and Research (Benjamins Translation Library)

Translation Universals: Do They Exist? (Benjamins Translation Library, 48)

Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004 (Benjamins Translation Library)

Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001 (Benjamins Translation Library)

Ethics and Politics of Translating (Benjamins Translation Library)

Ethics and Politics of Translating (Benjamins Translation Library)

Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II

Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II

Interpreters

The Turns of Translation Studies: New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? (Benjamins Translation Library)

Translation and Cultural Change: Studies in History, Norms and Image-projection (Benjamins Translation Library)

Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research (Benjamins Translation Library, 45)

Contexts, Subtexts and Pretexts: Literary translation in Eastern Europe and Russia (Benjamins Translation Library)

Voices of the Invisible Presence: Diplomatic Interpreters in Post-World War II Japan (Benjamins Translation Library, EST Subseries)

Agents of Translation (Benjamins Translation Library (Btl); Est)

Expertise And Explicitation in the Translation Process (Benjamins Translation Library : Est)

Contexts in Translating (Benjamins Translation Library)

Translation and the Problem of Sway (Benjamins Translation Library, 92)

The Art of Translation (Benjamins Translation Library (BTL))

Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines (Benjamins Translation Library)

The Didactics of Audiovisual Translation (Benjamins Translation Library)

Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom: Activities, tasks and projects (Benjamins Translation Library, BTL 54)

In Translation - Reflections, Refractions, Transformations (Benjamins Translation Library)

Constructing a Sociology of Translation (Benjamins Translation Library)

Less Translated Languages (Benjamins Translation Library)

Multi Media Translation: Concepts, Practices and Research (Benjamins Translation Library)

Multi Media Translation: Concepts, Practices and Research (Benjamins Translation Library)

Computers and Translation: A Translator's Guide (Benjamins Translation Library)

Translation as a Profession (Benjamins Translation Library, 73)

Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in action (Benjamins Translation Library)

Multi Media Translation: Concepts, Practices and Research (Benjamins Translation Library)

Translation Universals: Do They Exist? (Benjamins Translation Library, 48)

Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004 (Benjamins Translation Library)

Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001 (Benjamins Translation Library)

Ethics and Politics of Translating (Benjamins Translation Library)

Ethics and Politics of Translating (Benjamins Translation Library)

Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II

Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II

Interpreters

The Turns of Translation Studies: New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? (Benjamins Translation Library)

Translation and Cultural Change: Studies in History, Norms and Image-projection (Benjamins Translation Library)

Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research (Benjamins Translation Library, 45)

Contexts, Subtexts and Pretexts: Literary translation in Eastern Europe and Russia (Benjamins Translation Library)

Recommend Documents